Hydrating Camo Concealer Medium Neutral dupes and alternatives e.l.f. Cosmetics
4.3 (8,153)·Light · Warm 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 Medium Neutral (Light · Warm 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 Fit Me Natural Finish Concealer in 030 Honey, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Medium Neutral. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeMedium NeutralClosest shade match030 HoneyHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall86
Colour60%80#f1b786#eeaa75Close colourColour difference 3.6 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 1 of 4 compared78
Finish35%78SatinNaturalCloseNatural 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 compared54
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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims not settling into pores or fine lines; the match does not list it
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 overall0
Skin type100%0Dry, combination, normalSensitiveMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 75/100Shade match 86/100Medium 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.
Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Dark Circle Treatment Concealer in 122, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Medium Neutral. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeMedium NeutralClosest overall alternative122How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall86
Colour60%78#f1b786#eec192Close colourColour difference 3.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%94LightLightSameDepth difference: 3.3
Retailer descriptionMedium tanNot 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 76/100Shade match 86/100Medium 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
