All About Shadow Quad Eyeshadow Going Steady dupes and alternatives Clinique
4.3 (521)
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth, undertone and colour family only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar eyeshadow overall: shade match 55%, finish, pigmentation and format 30%, wear and performance 10%, comfort and skin suitability 5%.
Overall alternativesShade matchesRanked by the overall match: the most similar eyeshadow on shade, finish, wear and comfort 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 eyeshadow on shade, finish, wear and comfort and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Differences: Stick rather than powder (format)· 8-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)· Does not claim crease resistance
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish, pigmentation & format
76
Wear & performance
59
Comfort & skin suitability
62
Slight colour difference · Metallic
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Stick rather than powder (format) · 8-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Normal, Dry, Sensitive rather than sensitive (skin types)
Differences: Lighter· Stick rather than powder (format)· 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish, pigmentation & format
76
Wear & performance
55
Comfort & skin suitability
0
Slight colour difference · Metallic · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Lighter · Stick rather than powder (format) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Normal, Combination rather than sensitive (skin types)
Matches: Same finish: shimmer· Same format: powder
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Deeper· Silver rather than white
Score details
Shade match
56
Finish, pigmentation & format
100
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Shimmer · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 0% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Deeper · Silver rather than white · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Duochrome rather than shimmer (finish)
Score details
Shade match
68
Finish, pigmentation & format
69
Wear & performance
59
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Duochrome · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Duochrome rather than shimmer (finish) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance
Retailer shade note: deep purple shimmer with blue shift
Matches: Same longevity: long-wearing· Claims hydration
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Glitter rather than shimmer (finish)· Cream rather than powder (format)
Score details
Shade match
68
Finish, pigmentation & format
61
Wear & performance
78
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Glitter
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Glitter rather than shimmer (finish) · Cream rather than powder (format) · Does not claim crease resistance
Differences: Mauve rather than white· Liquid rather than powder (format)· 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
59
Finish, pigmentation & format
85
Wear & performance
59
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Shimmer
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Mauve rather than white · Liquid rather than powder (format) · 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance
about-face Fractal Glitter Eye Paint in Take A Trip, against Clinique All About Shadow Quad Eyeshadow in Going Steady. Compared using pan 3 of your shade. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeGoing SteadyClosest shade matchTake A TripHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%87#c3a3ba#bb9bb7Very close colourColour difference 2.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%92LightLightSameDepth difference 4.0 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone—not comparableNot listedCoolUndertone unknown on one side
Colour family25%100PurplePurpleSameSame colour family
Finish, pigmentation & format30% of overall · 2 of 3 compared76
Finish65%85ShimmerMetallicCloseMetallic finish rather than shimmer
Pigmentation20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot listed for eitherNeither product lists an opacity
Format15%35PowderCreamDifferentCream rather than powder
Wear & performance10% of overall88
Longevity50%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Waterproof20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims waterproof wear; your product does not list it
Comfort & skin suitability5% of overall · none of 3 comparable50
Comfort40%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot listed for eitherNeither product lists a comfortable feel
Hydration20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot listed for eitherNeither product lists hydration
Skin types40%—not comparableSensitiveNot listedNot listed for eitherSkin types not listed for one product
Overall match 84/100Shade 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.
RMS Beauty Eyelights Cream Eyeshadow in Aurora, against Clinique All About Shadow Quad Eyeshadow in Going Steady. Compared using pan 3 of your shade. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeGoing SteadyClosest overall alternativeAuroraHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%84#c3a3ba#cba1bfClose colourColour difference 3.1 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99LightLightSameDepth difference 0.6 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone—not comparableNot listedCoolUndertone unknown on one side
Colour family25%100PurplePurpleSameSame colour family
Finish, pigmentation & format30% of overall · 2 of 3 compared76
Finish65%85ShimmerMetallicCloseMetallic finish rather than shimmer
Pigmentation20%—not comparableNot listedBuildableNot listed for eitherAn opacity not listed for one product
Format15%35PowderCreamDifferentCream rather than powder
Wear & performance10% of overall · 2 of 3 compared100
Longevity50%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Comfort & skin suitability5% of overall · 1 of 3 compared40
Comfort40%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot listed for eitherNeither product lists a comfortable feel
Hydration20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims hydration; your product does not list it
Skin types40%—not comparableSensitiveNot listedNot listed for eitherSkin types not listed for one product
Overall match 84/100Shade match 90/100Medium 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.
32 similar shades scored two ways: the shade match on colour, depth, undertone and colour family; the overall match on shade match, finish, pigmentation and format, wear and performance and comfort and suitability. A pair with no swatch colour on one side or Low data confidence is listed without a score. 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.