16HR Camo Concealer Light Sand dupes and alternatives e.l.f. Cosmetics
4.2 (5,664)·Fair · Warm 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 matte finish· Same full coverage· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
67
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
60
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 21% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for combination skin
Retailer shade note: fair-light skin tones with neutral undertones
The closest shade to e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer Light Sand (Fair · Warm 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
CoverGirl TruBlend Undercover Concealer in Fair Porcelain, against e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Light Sand. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLight SandClosest shade matchFair PorcelainHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall87
Colour60%83#dcccbc#ead9caClose colourColour difference 3.2 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared100
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte finish
Coverage30%100FullFullSameSame full coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared54
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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Oily, combination, normalNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 84/100Shade 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 12S fair, against e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Light Sand. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLight SandClosest overall alternative12S fairHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall83
Colour60%76#dcccbc#eed5c1Close colourColour difference 4.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%87FairVery fairCloseDepth difference: 5.5
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%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 86/100Shade match 83/100Medium 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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $24 more
