16HR Camo Concealer Rich Chocolate dupes and alternatives e.l.f. Cosmetics
4.2 (5,664)·Deep tan · 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.
The closest shade to e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer Rich Chocolate (Deep tan · 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
Glossier Stretch Concealer for Dewy Buildable Coverage in Medium Tan 4, against e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Rich Chocolate. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeRich ChocolateClosest shade matchMedium Tan 4How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall77
Colour60%63#9f7253#b27646Slight colour differenceColour difference 5.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%90Deep tanTanCloseDepth difference: 4.4
Retailer descriptionRich deepNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared43
Finish35%12MatteRadiantDifferentRadiant finish rather than matte
Coverage30%80FullBuildableCloseBuildable coverage rather than full (buildable: one step of tolerance)
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 compared86
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%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 overall50
Skin type100%50Oily, combination, normalNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 68/100Shade match 77/100Medium 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.
Revlon ColorStay Skin Awaken Concealer in Cinnamon, against e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Rich Chocolate. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeRich ChocolateClosest overall alternativeCinnamonHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall76
Colour60%75#9f7253#ab764aClose colourColour difference 4.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%94Deep tanTanCloseDepth difference: 3.3
Retailer descriptionRich deepNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared67
Finish35%56MatteNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than matte
Coverage30%80FullBuildableCloseBuildable coverage rather than full (buildable: one step of tolerance)
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 · 4 of 5 compared58
Longevity30%6016-hour wear24-hour wearSome difference24-hour wear claimed against 16-hour wear
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product does not list it
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 overall50
Skin type100%50Oily, combination, normalNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 70/100Shade match 76/100Low 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 $14 more
View at Target