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.
$15Ulta Beauty(product price)$13 less (46%)4.0 (271)
Matches: Same pigmentation: opaque
Differences: Taupe rather than green· Metallic rather than duochrome (finish)· Powder rather than liquid (format)
Score details
A reliable match cannot be determined for this pair (low data confidence), so no score is shown.
Close colour · Metallic · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Taupe rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim waterproof
Matches: Both claim crease resistance· Both claim waterproof
Differences: Grey rather than green· Metallic rather than duochrome (finish)· Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
61
Finish, pigmentation & format
69
Wear & performance
85
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Close colour · Metallic · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Grey rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Differences: Golden rather than green· Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish)· Powder rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
69
Finish, pigmentation & format
63
Wear & performance
55
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Close colour · Shimmer · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Golden rather than green · Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim waterproof
Matches: Both claim crease resistance· Both claim waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
Shade match
62
Finish, pigmentation & format
60
Wear & performance
85
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Visibly different colour · Shimmer · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish) · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Retailer shade note: an olive green with silver shimmer
Matches: Both claim crease resistance· Both claim waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Deeper· Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
Shade match
63
Finish, pigmentation & format
58
Wear & performance
85
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Visibly different colour · Shimmer
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Deeper · Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Matches: Both claim crease resistance· Both claim waterproof· Claims comfort
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Taupe rather than green· Cream rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
47
Finish, pigmentation & format
87
Wear & performance
85
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Visibly different colour · Glitter
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Taupe rather than green · Cream rather than liquid (format) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Matches: Same longevity: long-wearing· Both claim waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Brown rather than green
Score details
Shade match
47
Finish, pigmentation & format
85
Wear & performance
82
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Glitter
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Brown rather than green · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim crease resistance
Retailer shade note: dark chocolate metallic with golden glimmer/
gold foil with lustrous Gold sparkle
Differences: Grey rather than green· Metallic rather than duochrome (finish)· Cream rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
57
Finish, pigmentation & format
73
Wear & performance
55
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Close colour · Metallic
Ingredients (not scored): 19% ingredient overlap
Differences: Grey rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Cream rather than liquid (format) · 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Deeper· Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
A reliable match cannot be determined for this pair (low data confidence), so no score is shown.
Visibly different colour · Shimmer
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Deeper · Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance
Matches: Both claim crease resistance· Both claim waterproof
Differences: Silver rather than green· Metallic rather than duochrome (finish)· Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
53
Finish, pigmentation & format
69
Wear & performance
85
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Metallic · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Silver rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Matches: Same longevity: long-wearing· Claims hydration
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Taupe rather than green
Score details
Shade match
47
Finish, pigmentation & format
87
Wear & performance
70
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Visibly different colour · Glitter
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Taupe rather than green · Cream rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim waterproof
Matches: Same pigmentation: opaque· Claims comfort
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Golden rather than green· Cream rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
50
Finish, pigmentation & format
90
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Glitter · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Golden rather than green · Cream rather than liquid (format) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim waterproof
Matches: Same pigmentation: opaque· Both claim waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Taupe rather than green
Score details
Shade match
54
Finish, pigmentation & format
76
Wear & performance
52
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Metallic · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 20% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Taupe rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance
Matches: Same format: liquid· Both claim crease resistance· Both claim waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Taupe rather than green· Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
Shade match
51
Finish, pigmentation & format
69
Wear & performance
85
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Shimmer
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Taupe rather than green · Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish) · 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Retailer shade note: cool-toned taupe with silver shimmer
$6Ulta Beauty(product price)$22 less (79%)4.0 (6,939)
Matches: Same longevity: long-wearing· Both claim crease resistance
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Brown rather than green· Metallic rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
Shade match
49
Finish, pigmentation & format
70
Wear & performance
88
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Metallic
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Brown rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim waterproof
Matches: Same pigmentation: opaque· Both claim crease resistance· Both claim waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Brown rather than green· Metallic rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
Shade match
48
Finish, pigmentation & format
73
Wear & performance
85
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Metallic · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Brown rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Taupe rather than green
Score details
Shade match
52
Finish, pigmentation & format
70
Wear & performance
67
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Metallic
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Taupe rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 11-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance
Matches: Same pigmentation: opaque· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Bronze rather than green· Metallic rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
Shade match
46
Finish, pigmentation & format
79
Wear & performance
70
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Visibly different colour · Metallic · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Bronze rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Cream rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim waterproof
Matches: Same pigmentation: opaque· Same format: liquid· Both claim crease resistance
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Silver rather than green
Score details
Shade match
40
Finish, pigmentation & format
85
Wear & performance
85
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Metallic · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Silver rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Matches: Same pigmentation: opaque· Both claim crease resistance
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Brown rather than green· Metallic rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
Shade match
47
Finish, pigmentation & format
73
Wear & performance
73
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Metallic · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Brown rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · 8-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim waterproof
Differences: Grey rather than green· Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish)· Powder rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
58
Finish, pigmentation & format
63
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Close colour · Shimmer · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Grey rather than green · Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim waterproof
Matches: Both claim crease resistance· Claims hydration
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Golden rather than green· Sheer rather than opaque (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
46
Finish, pigmentation & format
74
Wear & performance
73
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Visibly different colour · Glitter · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): 0% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Golden rather than green · Sheer rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim waterproof
Retailer shade note: sparkling gold with multi-colored pearl
$25Ulta Beauty(product price)$3 less (11%)4.8 (290)
Matches: Same format: liquid· Same longevity: long-wearing· Both claim crease resistance
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Taupe rather than green· Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
Shade match
46
Finish, pigmentation & format
68
Wear & performance
88
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Visibly different colour · Shimmer · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Taupe rather than green · Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish) · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Does not claim waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Taupe rather than green· Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
Shade match
56
Finish, pigmentation & format
63
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Shimmer · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Taupe rather than green · Shimmer rather than duochrome (finish) · Palette rather than liquid (format) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim waterproof
Matches: Same pigmentation: opaque· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Taupe rather than green· Metallic rather than duochrome (finish)
Score details
Shade match
45
Finish, pigmentation & format
73
Wear & performance
70
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Visibly different colour · Metallic · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Taupe rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim waterproof
Matches: Both claim crease resistance· Both claim waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Taupe rather than green
Score details
Shade match
44
Finish, pigmentation & format
69
Wear & performance
85
Comfort & skin suitability
50
Visibly different colour · Metallic · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Taupe rather than green · Metallic rather than duochrome (finish) · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Retailer shade note: a shimmering golden copper / a warm beige brown
Armani Beauty Eye Tint Long-Lasting Liquid Eyeshadow in 90M Olive, against Danessa Myricks Beauty Twin Flames Liquid Eyeshadow in Sweetheart. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeSweetheartClosest shade match90M OliveHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall80
Colour60%67#947c64#96825fSlight colour differenceColour difference 5.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%96MediumMediumSameDepth difference 2.5 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone—not comparableNot listedNot listedUndertone unknown on one side
Colour family25%100GreenGreenSameSame colour family
Finish, pigmentation & format30% of overall28
Finish65%0DuochromeMatteDifferentMatte finish rather than duochrome
Pigmentation20%65OpaqueBuildableSome differenceBuildable rather than opaque
Format15%100LiquidLiquidSameBoth liquid
Wear & performance10% of overall73
Longevity50%70Long-wearing16-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 16-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Overall match 62/100Shade match 80/100Medium 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.
Nudestix Magnetic Luminous Eye Color in Queen Olive, against Danessa Myricks Beauty Twin Flames Liquid Eyeshadow in Sweetheart. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeSweetheartClosest overall alternativeQueen OliveHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall77
Colour60%63#947c64#8a7856Slight colour differenceColour difference 5.9 (0 is identical)
Depth15%94MediumMediumSameDepth difference 3.3 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone—not comparableNot listedWarmUndertone unknown on one side
Colour family25%100GreenGreenSameSame colour family
Finish, pigmentation & format30% of overall · 2 of 3 compared70
Finish65%76DuochromeMetallicSome differenceMetallic finish rather than duochrome
Pigmentation20%—not comparableOpaqueNot listedNot listed for eitherAn opacity not listed for one product
Format15%45LiquidStickSome differenceStick rather than liquid
Wear & performance10% of overall67
Longevity50%70Long-wearing11-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 11-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Crease resistance30%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims crease resistance; the match does not list it
Overall match 73/100Shade match 77/100Medium 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, 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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $6 more
