Beautiful Skin Medium to Full Coverage Radiant Concealer 11.5 Tan dupes and alternatives Charlotte Tilbury
4.5 (515)·Light · Warm · 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.
$8Ulta Beauty(product price)$28 less (78%)4.3 (8,153)
Matches: Claims not settling into lines· Both claim a lightweight feel· No fragrance listed
Differences: Slightly deeper· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Satin rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
87
Close colour · Satin · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Satin rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed
$10.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$25.01 less (69%)4.1 (2,823)
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly deeper· Natural rather than radiant finish· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
50
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural finish
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Natural rather than radiant finish · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Not marketed for dry/normal skin
Matches: Same radiant finish· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim 16-hour wear
Differences: Slightly deeper· Olive rather than warm undertone· Medium rather than medium-full coverage
Score details
Shade match
69
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
87
Slight colour difference · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Olive rather than warm undertone · Medium rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: MD2.6 - medium-deep with warm undertones, and an olive tone
Differences: Slightly deeper · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Luminous rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed
Retailer shade note: for medium-tan neutral skin with peach undertones
Matches: Same warm undertone· Claims not settling into lines· No fragrance listed
Differences: Slightly lighter· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium-full coverage
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
43
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
80
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: for medium to tan skin w/ warm undertones
Matches: Claims not settling into lines· Both claim a lightweight feel· No fragrance listed
Differences: Slightly deeper· Slightly cooler undertone· Satin rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
61
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
87
Slight colour difference · Satin · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Slightly cooler undertone · Satin rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed
Retailer shade note: tan with cool-neutral undertones
Matches: Same warm undertone· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim 16-hour wear
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium-full coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry skin
Retailer shade note: medium to tan skin with warm, golden undertones
Matches: Claims not settling into lines· No fragrance listed
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium-full coverage
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish & visual result
43
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
80
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: for medium to tan skin w/ cool undertones
Matches: Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium-full coverage
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
47
Skin suitability
87
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: Medium Tan with neutral undertones
Matches: Both claim a lightweight feel· No fragrance listed
Differences: Slightly deeper· Natural rather than radiant finish· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
70
Finish & visual result
50
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
0
Slight colour difference · Natural finish
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Natural rather than radiant finish · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Not marketed for dry/normal skin
$15.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$20.01 less (56%)4.2 (1,617)
Matches: Claims transfer resistance· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium-full coverage
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish & visual result
43
Wear & performance
47
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Claims not settling into lines· No fragrance listed
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium-full coverage
Score details
Shade match
59
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
76
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
$15.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$20.01 less (56%)4.2 (1,617)
Matches: Claims transfer resistance· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium-full coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish & visual result
43
Wear & performance
47
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
$15.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$20.01 less (56%)4.2 (1,617)
Matches: Claims transfer resistance· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium-full coverage
Score details
Shade match
68
Finish & visual result
43
Wear & performance
47
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium-full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
The closest shade to Charlotte Tilbury Beautiful Skin Medium to Full Coverage Radiant Concealer 11.5 Tan (Light · Warm · 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
NYX Professional Makeup Bare With Me Hydrating Face & Body Concealer Serum in Golden, against Charlotte Tilbury Beautiful Skin Medium to Full Coverage Radiant Concealer in 11.5 Tan. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade11.5 TanClosest shade matchGoldenHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall93
Colour60%89#f9b27a#efb27bVery close colourColour difference 2.4 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98LightLightSameDepth difference: 1.5
Retailer descriptionTanNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared75
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%80Medium-fullMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than medium-full
Skin-like finish20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a skin-like finish
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared54
Longevity30%4016-hour wearNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims not settling into pores or fine lines; your product 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 overall50
Skin type100%50Dry, normalNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 81/100Shade match 93/100Medium 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.
e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Medium Neutral, against Charlotte Tilbury Beautiful Skin Medium to Full Coverage Radiant Concealer in 11.5 Tan. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade11.5 TanClosest overall alternativeMedium NeutralHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%86#f9b27a#f1b786Very close colourColour difference 2.9 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.8
Retailer descriptionTanMedium tanSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared70
Finish35%78RadiantSatinCloseSatin finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%80Medium-fullFullCloseFull coverage rather than medium-full
Skin-like finish20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a skin-like finish; the match does not list it
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared68
Longevity30%7016-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 16-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims not settling into pores or fine lines; your product 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 overall87
Skin type100%87Dry, normalDry, combination, normalBoth marketed for dry/normal skin
Overall match 82/100Shade 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.
Ulta Beauty
Sephora$4 less (11%)
