Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth and undertone only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar foundation overall, scored on shade match (55%), finish and visual result (25%), wear and performance (15%) and skin suitability (5%).
Overall alternativesShade matchesRanked by the overall match: the most similar foundation on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Ranked by the overall match: the most similar foundation on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Matches: Very close colour· Same natural finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· No long-wear claim· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
88
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry skin
The closest shade to Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Foundation 6 (Medium · Olive · neutral olive undertone) in each concealer range, compared on measured colour, depth and undertone. Price never changes the order.
Concealer shade colours are sampled from retailer swatch images, so check the shade on the retailer page before buying.
Why the closest shade match works
Pat McGrath Labs Skin Fetish: Sublime Perfection Foundation in Medium 18, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Foundation in 6. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade6Closest shade matchMedium 18How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%88#c19462#cc9763Very close colourColour difference 2.6 (0 is identical)
Depth15%96MediumMediumSameDepth difference: 2.7
Retailer descriptionMediumMediumBoth described as mediumThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared81
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared51
Longevity30%4024-hour wearNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
Transfer resistance20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match does not list it
Settling20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims not settling into pores or fine lines; the match does not list it
Colour stability15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists colour stability (no oxidation)
Comfort15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, oilyNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for normal/dry skin
Overall match 81/100Shade match 92/100High confidence· Digital match
Weights are each part's share of the overall match and each attribute's share of its part; an attribute neither product lists is not comparable and its weight goes to the others in its part. Confidence reflects data quality, not similarity. Price and ingredients are not part of either score.
Fenty Beauty Pro Filt'r Fluid Flex Natural Matte Longwear Foundation in 396N, against Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Foundation in 6. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade6Closest overall alternative396NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%86#c19462#bc8d61Very close colourColour difference 2.8 (0 is identical)
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a skin-like finish; your product does not list it
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall82
Longevity30%7024-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 24-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim transfer resistance
Settling20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim not settling into pores or fine lines
Colour stability15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims colour stability (no oxidation); your product does not list it
Comfort15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, oilyNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for normal/oily skin
Overall match 85/100Shade match 91/100High confidence· Digital match
Weights are each part's share of the overall match and each attribute's share of its part; an attribute neither product lists is not comparable and its weight goes to the others in its part. Confidence reflects data quality, not similarity. Price and ingredients are not part of either score.
30 similar shades scored two ways: the shade match on colour, depth and undertone; the overall match on shade match, finish and visual result, wear and performance and skin suitability. Ingredients are shown for information and used by the filters only. Prices are shown next to every match and never change a score. How scoring and confidence work.
Shade colours are sampled from Beautler’s processing of retailer swatch images and are a digital approximation. Prices and stock were last checked when the product was imported; the retailer page is the source of truth.
Sephora$21 less (30%)
