Hydrating Camo Concealer Light Beige dupes and alternatives e.l.f. Cosmetics
4.3 (8,153)·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: Very close colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Radiant rather than satin finish· Medium-full rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
67
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium-full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium-full rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fair/medium with neutral undertones
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same full coverage· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Natural rather than satin finish· Does not claim not settling into lines· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
88
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
33
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than satin finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry/combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fair skin with warm undertones
Matches: Same full coverage· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly deeper· Olive rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
88
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
33
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Olive rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than satin finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry/combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: light skin with warm olive undertones
The closest shade to e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer Light Beige (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
Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Dark Circle Treatment Concealer in 122, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Light Beige. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLight BeigeClosest shade match122How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%98#eebf91#eec192Looks identicalColour difference 0.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.7
Retailer descriptionLightNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 1 of 4 compared78
Finish35%78SatinRadiantCloseRadiant finish rather than satin
Coverage30%—not comparableFullNot listedNot comparedCoverage not listed for one product
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 compared59
Longevity30%40Long-wearingNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall0
Skin type100%0Dry, combination, normalSensitiveMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 82/100Shade match 98/100Medium 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.
Glossier Stretch Concealer for Dewy Buildable Coverage in Medium 2, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Light Beige. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLight BeigeClosest overall alternativeMedium 2How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%94#eebf91#f6c495Very close colourColour difference 1.6 (0 is identical)
Depth15%95LightFairCloseDepth difference: 2.9
Retailer descriptionLightNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared79
Finish35%78SatinRadiantCloseRadiant finish rather than satin
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 compared100
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long 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 overall50
Skin type100%50Dry, combination, normalNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 90/100Shade match 96/100Medium 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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $22 more
