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 neutral undertone· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Slightly lighter· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than light coverage
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
52
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Slightly lighter · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than light coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for normal/combination/oily skin
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Buildable rather than light coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
67
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Buildable rather than light coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for normal/combination/oily skin
Matches: Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than matte finish
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
84
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than light coverage · No blurring effect claimed
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Claims long-wearing
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than light coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
55
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than light coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily skin
The closest shade to Danessa Myricks Beauty Yummy Skin Blurring Balm Powder 1 (Light · Neutral 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
Benefit Cosmetics The POREfessional Blurring & Smoothing Foundation in 7N Savvy, against Danessa Myricks Beauty Yummy Skin Blurring Balm Powder in 1. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade1Closest shade match7N SavvyHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall93
Colour60%89#d7bba3#d9b99aVery close colourColour difference 2.4 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.8
Retailer descriptionFairLightSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared73
Finish35%56MatteNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than matte
Coverage30%80LightMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than light (buildable: one step of tolerance)
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 compared60
Longevity30%40Not listed24-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims long wear; your product does not list it
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, combination, oilyNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for normal/combination/oily skin
Overall match 84/100Shade 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.
Clinique Acne Solutions Liquid Makeup Foundation in CN 10 Alabaster, against Danessa Myricks Beauty Yummy Skin Blurring Balm Powder in 1. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade1Closest overall alternativeCN 10 AlabasterHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour60%97#d7bba3#dcbea5Looks identicalColour difference 1.1 (0 is identical)
Depth15%97LightLightSameDepth difference: 1.7
Retailer descriptionFairNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared93
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte finish
Coverage30%80LightMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than light (buildable: one step of tolerance)
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 · 1 of 5 compared100
Longevity30%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists 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 overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, combination, oilyCombination, dry, oilyBoth marketed for combination/oily skin
Overall match 90/100Shade match 89/100Medium 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.
31 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.
Sephora
Ulta Beauty(product price)Costs $3 more
