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 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 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
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
Haus Labs Triclone Skin Tech Hydrating + De-puffing Concealer in 02 Fair Golden, against e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Light Beige. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLight BeigeClosest shade match02 Fair GoldenHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall75
Colour60%70#d5c5ab#e6cdb5Close colourColour difference 5.0 (0 is identical)
Depth15%88LightFairCloseDepth difference: 5.2
Retailer descriptionLightFairSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared55
Finish35%56MatteNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than matte
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 compared68
Longevity30%7016-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 16-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims not settling into pores or fine lines; the match does not list it
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%60Oily, combination, normalNormal, dry, oilyBoth marketed for oily/normal skin
Overall match 68/100Shade match 75/100Medium 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.
Hourglass Vanish Airbrush Full Coverage Longwear Concealer in Cotton 2, against e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Light Beige. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLight BeigeClosest overall alternativeCotton 2How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall73
Colour60%55#d5c5ab#e1be9cSlight colour differenceColour difference 6.9 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98LightLightSameDepth difference: 1.5
Retailer descriptionLightFairSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
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 overall60
Skin type100%60Oily, combination, normalNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for combination/normal skin
Overall match 74/100Shade match 73/100Medium 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 $22 more
View at Target
