Even Better All-Over Concealer + Eraser WN 38 Stone dupes and alternatives Clinique
4.0 (1,308)·Fair · 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.
Matches: Similar undertone (warm vs neutral)· Same natural finish· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
33
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry/oily skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fair skin with warm undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish· Medium-full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
80
Skin suitability
67
Close colour · Radiant · Medium-full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium-full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for oily skin · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same natural finish· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
33
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry/oily skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fair skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Similar undertone (warm vs neutral)· Same natural finish· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly deeper· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
33
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry/oily skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fair skin with warm yellow undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same natural finish· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly deeper· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
33
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry/oily skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: very fair skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same natural finish· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly deeper· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
73
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
33
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry/oily skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: very fair skin with neutral undertones
Differences: Slightly lighter · Olive rather than neutral undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed
Differences: Slightly deeper · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium-full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for oily skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fair/medium with neutral undertones
The closest shade to Clinique Even Better All-Over Concealer + Eraser WN 38 Stone (Fair · 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
Charlotte Tilbury Airbrush Flawless Long-Wear Blur Concealer in 4.5 Fair-Medium, against Clinique Even Better All-Over Concealer + Eraser in WN 38 Stone. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeWN 38 StoneClosest shade match4.5 Fair-MediumHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%86#eccda4#eecaa6Very close colourColour difference 2.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99FairFairSameDepth difference: 0.7
Retailer descriptionVery fairFairSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared66
Finish35%56NaturalMatteSome differenceMatte finish rather than natural
Coverage30%60MediumFullSome differenceFull coverage rather than medium
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%70Long-wearing24-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 24-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists colour stability (no oxidation)
Comfort15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall100
Skin type100%100Normal, dry, oilyNormal, dry, oilyBoth marketed for normal/dry/oily skin
Overall match 79/100Shade 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.
Haus Labs Triclone Skin Tech Hydrating + De-puffing Concealer in 02 Fair Golden, against Clinique Even Better All-Over Concealer + Eraser in WN 38 Stone. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeWN 38 StoneClosest overall alternative02 Fair GoldenHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall73
Colour60%68#eccda4#e6cdb5Slight colour differenceColour difference 5.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%100FairFairSameDepth difference: 0.3
Retailer descriptionVery fairFairSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared100
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural 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 · 2 of 5 compared100
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
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 overall100
Skin type100%100Normal, dry, oilyNormal, dry, oilyBoth marketed for normal/dry/oily skin
Overall match 85/100Shade match 73/100High 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.
SephoraCosts $14 more
