Yummy Skin Soothing Serum Skin Tint Foundation 8 dupes and alternatives Danessa Myricks Beauty
4.3 (1,515)·Medium · Warm · peach 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 warm undertone· Same radiant finish
Differences: Buildable rather than light coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Radiant · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Buildable rather than light coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: medium skin with warm undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than light coverage
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
67
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than light coverage · Not marketed for dry skin · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: medium dark with neutral undertone
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Buildable rather than light coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Radiant · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Buildable rather than light coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: medium skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same radiant finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Medium rather than light coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Medium rather than light coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: medium skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than light coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
47
Wear & performance
63
Skin suitability
84
Looks identical · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than light coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than light coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
98
Finish & visual result
28
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than light coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: for tan skin with warm undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than light coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
28
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than light coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: for medium to tan skin with warm yellow undertones
The closest shade to Danessa Myricks Beauty Yummy Skin Soothing Serum Skin Tint Foundation 8 (Medium · Warm · peach 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
R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in tan 6 w, against Danessa Myricks Beauty Yummy Skin Soothing Serum Skin Tint Foundation in 8. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade8Closest shade matchtan 6 wHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%98#d58f54#d28d53Looks identicalColour difference 0.7 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98MediumMediumSameDepth difference: 1.2
Retailer descriptionMedium tanTanSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared54
Finish35%12RadiantMatteDifferentMatte finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%80LightBuildableCloseBuildable 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 · 3 of 5 compared40
Longevity30%40Long-wearingNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
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 overall0
Skin type100%0Normal, dry, oilyCombinationMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 74/100Shade match 98/100Medium 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.
Charlotte Tilbury Unreal Skin Sheer Glow Tint Hydrating Foundation Stick in 10 Tan, against Danessa Myricks Beauty Yummy Skin Soothing Serum Skin Tint Foundation in 8. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade8Closest overall alternative10 TanHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%97#d58f54#d99255Looks identicalColour difference 1.0 (0 is identical)
Depth15%97MediumMediumSameDepth difference: 1.7
Retailer descriptionMedium tanTanSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Skin-like finish20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a skin-like finish; your product does not list it
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 overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, oilyNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for normal/dry skin
Overall match 94/100Shade match 98/100Medium 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.
Ulta Beauty
Sephora$2 less (5%)
Target
