Hydrating Camo Concealer Light Peach dupes and alternatives e.l.f. Cosmetics
4.3 (8,153)·Light · Cool · rosy 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 Hydrating Camo Concealer Light Peach (Light · Cool · rosy 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
Tarte Shape Tape Full Coverage Matte Concealer in 29N light-medium, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Light Peach. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLight PeachClosest shade match29N light-mediumHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%84#ecbd99#e3bda2Close colourColour difference 3.1 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98LightLightSameDepth difference: 1.0
Retailer descriptionLightLight mediumSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared60
Finish35%34SatinMatteDifferentMatte finish rather than satin
Coverage30%100FullFullSameSame full coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a blurring or smoothing effect; your product does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared72
Longevity30%70Long-wearing16-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 16-hour wear; your product 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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall60
Skin type100%60Dry, combination, normalNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for combination/normal skin
Overall match 79/100Shade match 90/100Medium 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.
Too Faced Born This Way Super Coverage Multi-Use Concealer in Light Beige, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Light Peach. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLight PeachClosest overall alternativeLight BeigeHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall81
Colour60%86#ecbd99#e1b393Very close colourColour difference 2.8 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared88
Finish35%78SatinNaturalCloseNatural finish rather than satin
Coverage30%100FullFullSameSame full coverage
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 overall100
Skin type100%100Dry, combination, normalNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for dry/combination/normal skin
Overall match 87/100Shade match 81/100Medium 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.
SephoraCosts $28 more
