Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth, undertone and colour family only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar contour 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 contour 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 contour 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 finish: natural· Same format: liquid· Both claim comfort
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation)· Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish, pigmentation & format
93
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Slight colour difference · Natural · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity) · Does not claim hydration
Differences: Dewy rather than natural (finish)· Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation)· Stick rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish, pigmentation & format
62
Wear & performance
50
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Dewy · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Dewy rather than natural (finish) · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same finish: natural· Both claim hydration
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation)· Stick rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish, pigmentation & format
82
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
60
Slight colour difference · Natural · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity) · Does not claim comfort
Matches: Same finish: natural· Both claim comfort· Both claim hydration
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Sheer rather than opaque (pigmentation)· Stick rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish, pigmentation & format
75
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
100
Slight colour difference · Natural · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Sheer rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity)
Matches: Same finish: natural· Both claim comfort· Both claim hydration
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Sheer rather than opaque (pigmentation)· Stick rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
73
Finish, pigmentation & format
75
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
100
Slight colour difference · Natural · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Sheer rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity)
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Dewy rather than natural (finish)· Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish, pigmentation & format
62
Wear & performance
50
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Dewy · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Dewy rather than natural (finish) · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Sold as blush, rated here for use as contour (possible)
Retailer shade note: terracotta glow / deep contour
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Dewy rather than natural (finish)· Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish, pigmentation & format
62
Wear & performance
50
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Dewy · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Dewy rather than natural (finish) · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Sold as blush, rated here for use as contour (possible)
Matches: Same format: liquid· Both claim hydration
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation)· Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
72
Finish, pigmentation & format
80
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
60
Slight colour difference · Matte · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 31% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity) · Does not claim comfort
Differences: Mauve rather than brown· Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation)· Stick rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish, pigmentation & format
69
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
100
Close colour · Matte · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Mauve rather than brown · Buildable rather than opaque (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Long-wearing rather than not listed (longevity)
Anastasia Beverly Hills Smooth Blur Cream Contour Stick in Cast Shadow, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Halo Glow Contour Beauty Wand in Deep/Rich. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeDeep/RichClosest shade matchCast ShadowHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall94
Colour50%87#321c19#31201eVery close colourColour difference 2.7 (0 is identical)
Depth25%100Deep / darkDeep / darkSameDepth difference 0.0 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone—not comparableNot listedNot listedUndertone unknown on one side
Colour family25%100BrownBrownSameSame colour family
Finish, pigmentation & format25% of overall75
Finish60%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Pigmentation20%30OpaqueSheerDifferentSheer rather than opaque
Format20%45LiquidStickSome differenceStick rather than liquid
Wear & performance15% of overall · 1 of 3 compared40
Longevity50%40Not listedLong-wearingSome differenceThe match claims long wear; your product does not list it
Transfer resistance30%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot listed for eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Skin types40%—not comparableNot listedNormal, CombinationNot listed for eitherSkin types not listed for one product
Overall match 81/100Shade match 94/100Medium 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.
e.l.f. Cosmetics Camo Liquid Bronzer & Contour in 10 Rich, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Halo Glow Contour Beauty Wand in Deep/Rich. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeDeep/RichClosest overall alternative10 RichHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour50%78#321c19#3d2823Close colourColour difference 3.9 (0 is identical)
Depth25%100Deep / darkDeep / darkSameDepth difference 0.0 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone—not comparableNot listedNot listedUndertone unknown on one side
Colour family25%100BrownBrownSameSame colour family
Comfort & skin suitability5% of overall · 2 of 3 compared80
Comfort40%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable feel
Hydration20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims hydration; the match does not list it
Skin types40%—not comparableNot listedCombination, Dry, Normal, Oily, SensitiveNot listed for eitherSkin types not listed for one product
Overall match 84/100Shade match 89/100Medium 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, 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.
Sephora
Ulta BeautyCosts $19.50 more
