16HR Camo Concealer Medium Warm 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: Similar undertone (neutral vs warm)· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly deeper· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
55
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Matches: Similar undertone (neutral vs warm)· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly deeper· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
55
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Matches: Similar undertone (neutral vs warm)· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish & visual result
55
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
60
Slight colour difference · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · 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: medium fair, warm-neutral undertones
The closest shade to e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer Medium Warm (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
Clinique Even Better All-Over Concealer + Eraser in WN 56 Cashew, against e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Medium Warm. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeMedium WarmClosest shade matchWN 56 CashewHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall81
Colour60%75#ebb672#e7bb8aClose colourColour difference 4.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%97LightLightSameDepth difference: 1.7
Retailer descriptionMedium tanMediumSome 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 71/100Shade match 81/100Medium 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.
Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear All Over Full Coverage Concealer in 320 Bisque W, against e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Medium Warm. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeMedium WarmClosest overall alternative320 Bisque WHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall73
Colour60%56#ebb672#dbbc90Slight colour differenceColour difference 6.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.6
Retailer descriptionMedium tanMediumSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
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 72/100Shade 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.
Sephora
Ulta Beauty(product price)Costs $24 more
