Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth, undertone and colour family only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar blush overall: shade match 55%, finish, pigmentation and format 25%, wear and performance 15%, comfort and skin suitability 5%.
Overall alternativesShade matchesRanked by the overall match: the most similar blush on shade, finish, wear and comfort 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 blush on shade, finish, wear and comfort and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same finish: natural· Same format: liquid
Differences: Rose rather than peach· Sheer rather than buildable (pigmentation)· Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
65
Finish, pigmentation & format
91
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
64
Slight colour difference · Natural · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Rose rather than peach · Sheer rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity) · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same finish: natural· Same skin types: combination, dry, normal, oily, sensitive
Differences: Deeper· Brown / nude rather than peach· Sheer rather than buildable (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
72
Finish, pigmentation & format
71
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
64
Slight colour difference · Natural · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Deeper · Brown / nude rather than peach · Sheer rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity) · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same finish: natural· Same format: liquid
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Deeper· Sheer rather than buildable (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
56
Finish, pigmentation & format
91
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
64
Visibly different colour · Natural · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Deeper · Sheer rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity) · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
RMS Beauty ReDimension Hydra Powder Blush in Crystal Slipper, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Halo Glow Blush Beauty Wand in Candlelit. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeCandlelitClosest matchCrystal SlipperHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall80
Colour55%80#e5b6a2#f4c4b1Close colourColour difference 3.6 (0 is identical)
Depth15%80LightLightSome differenceDepth difference 7.4 on the 0–100 scale
Overall match 69/100Shade match 80/100High 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, pigmentation and format, 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.
Ulta BeautyCosts $24 more
