Airbrush Flawless Long-Wear Blur Concealer 9.5 Tan dupes and alternatives Charlotte Tilbury
4.5 (1,799)·Medium light · Neutral · neutral golden undertone
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth and undertone only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar concealer 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 concealer 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 concealer on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
$32Ulta Beauty(product price)$4 less (11%)4.6 (10,553)
Matches: Same matte finish· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim 24-hour wear
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly cooler undertone· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
72
Finish & visual result
85
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
28
Close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly cooler undertone · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for normal/oily skin
Retailer shade note: medium-deep with rosy undertones
$8Ulta Beauty(product price)$28 less (78%)4.3 (8,153)
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same full coverage· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Satin rather than matte finish· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
60
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Satin · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Satin rather than matte finish · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for oily skin
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone· Radiant rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
90
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone · Radiant rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance
Retailer shade note: medium tan with warm olive undertones
Matches: Similar undertone (warm vs neutral)· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
52
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance
Matches: Similar undertone (warm vs neutral)· Both claim not settling into lines· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Luminous rather than matte finish· Buildable rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
38
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Luminous · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Luminous rather than matte finish · Buildable rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance
Retailer shade note: for medium-tan warm skin with golden undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: medium deep with neutral peach undertones
The closest shade to Charlotte Tilbury Airbrush Flawless Long-Wear Blur Concealer 9.5 Tan (Medium light · Neutral · neutral golden undertone) in each foundation range, compared on measured colour, depth and undertone. Price never changes the order.
Foundation shade colours are sampled from retailer swatch images, so check the shade on the retailer page before buying.
Why the closest shade match works
Make Up For Ever HD Skin Full Cover Multi-Use Waterproof Concealer in 2Y36, against Charlotte Tilbury Airbrush Flawless Long-Wear Blur Concealer in 9.5 Tan. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade9.5 TanClosest shade match2Y36How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall94
Colour60%97#d99e68#daa16dLooks identicalColour difference 0.9 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared100
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte finish
Coverage30%100FullFullSameSame full 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 compared52
Longevity30%3524-hour wear36-hour wearDifferent36-hour wear claimed against 24-hour wear
Transfer resistance20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim transfer resistance
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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, oilyNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for normal/oily skin
Overall match 88/100Shade match 94/100Medium 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.
MAC Cosmetics Studio Fix 36HR Smooth Angles Hydrating Concealer in NC40, against Charlotte Tilbury Airbrush Flawless Long-Wear Blur Concealer in 9.5 Tan. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade9.5 TanClosest overall alternativeNC40How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%92#d99e68#e19e67Very close colourColour difference 2.0 (0 is identical)
Overall match 90/100Shade match 91/100Medium 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.