Acne Solutions Liquid Makeup Foundation WN 56 Cashew dupes and alternatives Clinique
4.3 (1,754)·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 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 matte finish· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Matte · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: medium skin with warm olive undertones
The closest shade to Clinique Acne Solutions Liquid Makeup Foundation WN 56 Cashew (Medium light · Neutral · neutral golden 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
MAC Cosmetics Studio Fix Fluid SPF 15 Foundation in NC20, against Clinique Acne Solutions Liquid Makeup Foundation in WN 56 Cashew. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeWN 56 CashewClosest shade matchNC20How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall97
Colour60%95#e2a575#e8a672Looks identicalColour difference 1.3 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared81
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte finish
Coverage30%80MediumFullCloseFull coverage rather than medium (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall49
Longevity30%40Not listed24-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims long wear; your product does not list it
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product does not list it
Settling20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims not settling into pores or fine lines; your product does not list it
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 overall30
Skin type100%30Combination, dry, oilyNormal, oilyBoth marketed for oily skin
Overall match 83/100Shade match 97/100Medium 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.
Urban Decay Face Bond Self Setting Waterproof Foundation in 17, against Clinique Acne Solutions Liquid Makeup Foundation in WN 56 Cashew. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeWN 56 CashewClosest overall alternative17How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall93
Colour60%95#e2a575#e1a46fLooks identicalColour difference 1.4 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared100
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte finish
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 · 3 of 5 compared54
Longevity30%40Not listedLong-wearingSome differenceThe match claims long wear; your product does not list it
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product does not list it
Settling20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists not settling into pores or fine lines
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%60Combination, dry, oilyNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for combination/oily skin
Overall match 87/100Shade 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.
33 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.
SephoraCosts $16 more
