16HR Camo Concealer Light Beige dupes and alternatives e.l.f. Cosmetics
4.2 (5,664)·Light · Warm · 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: Same warm undertone· Same matte finish· Same full coverage
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
68
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 32% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Same full coverage· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish
Score details
Shade match
65
Finish & visual result
76
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
84
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same full coverage· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Natural rather than matte finish· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
73
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
58
Skin suitability
60
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 21% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Natural rather than matte finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Matches: Same full coverage· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone
Score details
Shade match
63
Finish & visual result
76
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
84
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same full coverage· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Natural rather than matte finish· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish & visual result
76
Wear & performance
47
Skin suitability
33
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Natural rather than matte finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily/combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: light skin with warm undertones
Matches: Same full coverage· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone
Score details
Shade match
63
Finish & visual result
76
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
84
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Claims a blurring effect· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Olive rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish & visual result
55
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Olive rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Retailer shade note: fair with golden-olive undertones
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same full coverage· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Natural rather than matte finish· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
72
Finish & visual result
76
Wear & performance
47
Skin suitability
33
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Natural rather than matte finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily/combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fair skin with warm yellow undertones
The closest shade to e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer Light Beige (Light · Warm · 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
Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear All Over Full Coverage Concealer in 215 Buff N, against e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Light Beige. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLight BeigeClosest shade match215 Buff NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall87
Colour60%83#d5c5ab#e3cfb6Close colourColour difference 3.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%86LightFairCloseDepth difference: 5.6
Retailer descriptionLightLightBoth described as lightThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared74
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte finish
Coverage30%60FullMediumSome differenceMedium coverage rather than full
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a blurring or smoothing effect; your product does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared82
Longevity30%6016-hour wear24-hour wearSome difference24-hour wear claimed against 16-hour wear
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim 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 overall28
Skin type100%28Oily, combination, normalDry, combination, sensitiveBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 80/100Shade match 87/100Medium 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.
Tarte Shape Tape Full Coverage Matte Concealer in 20S light sand, against e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Light Beige. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLight BeigeClosest overall alternative20S light sandHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall74
Colour60%59#d5c5ab#e7c9b0Slight colour differenceColour difference 6.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%92LightFairCloseDepth difference: 3.8
Retailer descriptionLightLightBoth described as lightThe retailers describe the same depth
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim not settling into pores or fine lines
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%100Oily, combination, normalNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for oily/combination/normal skin
Overall match 81/100Shade match 74/100Medium 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 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 $24 more
View at Target
