Glossy Lip Stain Cinnamon Dreamz dupes and alternatives e.l.f. Cosmetics
4.3 (17,842)·Brown · Warm · Deep / dark
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth, undertone and colour family only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar lipstick overall: shade match 60%, finish and visual result 20%, wear and performance 15%, comfort and suitability 5%.
Overall alternativesShade matchesRanked by the overall match: the most similar lipstick on shade, finish, wear and comfort together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Ranked by the overall match: the most similar lipstick on shade, finish, wear and comfort together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone
Differences: Opaque rather than buildable (opacity)· 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
58
Comfort & suitability
40
Looks identical · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Opaque rather than buildable (opacity) · 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim comfort
Matches: Same warm undertone· Both claim comfort· Claims hydration
Differences: Lighter· Nude rather than brown· Sheer rather than buildable (opacity)
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
58
Comfort & suitability
70
Close colour · Matte · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Lighter · Nude rather than brown · Sheer rather than buildable (opacity) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim transfer resistance
Matches: Same warm undertone· Both claim comfort· Claims hydration
Differences: Nude rather than brown· Opaque rather than buildable (opacity)· Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & suitability
70
Close colour · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Nude rather than brown · Opaque rather than buildable (opacity) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim transfer resistance
Matches: Same opacity: buildable· Both claim transfer resistance
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone
Score details
Shade match
63
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
82
Comfort & suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Matte · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim comfort
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same opacity: buildable· Both claim comfort
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Deeper· Red rather than brown
Score details
Shade match
61
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
58
Comfort & suitability
70
Slight colour difference · Matte · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Deeper · Red rather than brown · 10-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim transfer resistance
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Opaque rather than buildable (opacity)· 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
58
Comfort & suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Opaque rather than buildable (opacity) · 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim comfort
Matches: Both claim transfer resistance· Claims hydration
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone
Score details
Shade match
68
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
82
Comfort & suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 0% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Opaque rather than buildable (opacity) · 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim comfort
Matches: Same warm undertone· Both claim transfer resistance· Both claim comfort
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Deeper· Nude rather than brown
Score details
Shade match
65
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
82
Comfort & suitability
70
Slight colour difference · Glossy · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Deeper · Nude rather than brown · Opaque rather than buildable (opacity) · 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Matches: Same warm undertone· Both claim comfort· Claims hydration
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Opaque rather than buildable (opacity)
Score details
Shade match
68
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
58
Comfort & suitability
70
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Opaque rather than buildable (opacity) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim transfer resistance
MAC Cosmetics Lustreglass Sheer-Shine Lipstick in Can't Dull My Shine, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Glossy Lip Stain in Cinnamon Dreamz. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeCinnamon DreamzClosest shade matchCan't Dull My ShineHow they compareScore
Shade match60% of overall97
Colour60%96#782a15#76270fLooks identicalColour difference 1.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98Deep / darkDeep / darkSameDepth difference 1.4 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone13%100WarmWarmSameSame product undertone
Colour family13%100BrownBrownSameSame colour family
Finish & visual result20% of overall · 1 of 2 compared65
Finish55%—not comparableNot listedGlossyNot listed for eitherA finish not listed for one product
Opacity45%65BuildableSheerSome differenceSheer rather than buildable
Wear & performance15% of overall76
Longevity60%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Transfer resistance40%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match does not list it
Comfort & suitability5% of overall40
Comfort50%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable feel; the match does not list it
Hydration50%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims hydration; your product does not list it
Overall match 85/100Shade match 97/100Medium 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.
Charlotte Tilbury Matte Revolution Hydrating Lipstick in So 90's, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Glossy Lip Stain in Cinnamon Dreamz. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeCinnamon DreamzClosest overall alternativeSo 90'sHow they compareScore
Shade match60% of overall92
Colour60%87#782a15#83260eVery close colourColour difference 2.7 (0 is identical)
Depth15%97Deep / darkDeep / darkSameDepth difference 1.9 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone13%100WarmWarmSameSame product undertone
Colour family13%100BrownBrownSameSame colour family
Finish & visual result20% of overall · 1 of 2 compared100
Finish55%—not comparableNot listedMatteNot listed for eitherA finish not listed for one product
Longevity60%70Long-wearing10-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 10-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance40%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match does not list it
Comfort & suitability5% of overall40
Comfort50%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable feel; the match does not list it
Hydration50%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims hydration; your product does not list it
Overall match 86/100Shade match 92/100Medium 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, undertone and colour family; the overall match on shade match, finish and visual result, wear and performance and comfort and suitability. A pair with no swatch colour on one side or Low data confidence is listed without a score. 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 $5.99 more
