Hydrating Camo Concealer Rich Chocolate dupes and alternatives e.l.f. Cosmetics
4.3 (8,153)·Tan · 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.
Differences: Natural rather than satin finish· No long-wear claim· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
78
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
0
Close colour · Natural finish
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than satin finish · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry/combination/normal skin
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same full coverage· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly deeper· Matte rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 24% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly deeper · Matte rather than satin finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Radiant rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
70
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
0
Slight colour difference · Radiant finish
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Not marketed for dry/combination/normal skin · Contains drying alcohol
Differences: Natural rather than satin finish· No long-wear claim· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
78
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
0
Close colour · Natural finish
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than satin finish · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry/combination/normal skin
Matches: Same warm undertone· Same full coverage· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Matte rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
72
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 24% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Matte rather than satin finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains drying alcohol
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly deeper · Natural rather than satin finish · Buildable rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Same full coverage· Claims transfer resistance· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Matte rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
64
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Matte rather than satin finish · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· Described as medium tan, yours as rich deep· Slightly cooler undertone
Score details
Shade match
40
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
90
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 19% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Described as medium tan, yours as rich deep · Slightly cooler undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium rather than full coverage
Retailer shade note: medium deep with cool red undertones
Low confidence· Digital matchRetailer descriptions disagree: described as medium tan, yours as rich deep
Matches: Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Described as medium tan, yours as rich deep
Score details
Shade match
40
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
90
Slight colour difference · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 19% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Described as medium tan, yours as rich deep · Slightly cooler undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium rather than full coverage
Retailer shade note: medium tan with cool peach undertones
Low confidence· Digital matchRetailer descriptions disagree: described as medium tan, yours as rich deep
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Described as medium tan, yours as rich deep· Slightly cooler undertone· Radiant rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
40
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
90
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 19% ingredient overlap
Differences: Described as medium tan, yours as rich deep · Slightly cooler undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium rather than full coverage
Retailer shade note: medium deep with cool neutral undertones
Low confidence· Digital matchRetailer descriptions disagree: described as medium tan, yours as rich deep
The closest shade to e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer Rich Chocolate (Tan · 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
L'Oréal Paris True Match Radiant Serum Concealer in C8, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Rich Chocolate. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeRich ChocolateClosest shade matchC8How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall85
Colour60%78#bb7c5c#cc835dClose colourColour difference 3.9 (0 is identical)
Depth15%87TanMedium tanCloseDepth difference: 5.3
Retailer descriptionRich deepNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared64
Finish35%78SatinRadiantCloseRadiant finish rather than satin
Coverage30%—not comparableFullNot listedNot comparedCoverage not listed for one product
Skin-like finish20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a skin-like finish; your product does not list it
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 overall0
Skin type100%0Dry, combination, normalSensitiveMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 78/100Shade match 85/100Medium 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.
IT Cosmetics Bye Bye Under Eye Full Coverage Anti-Aging Water-Resistant Concealer in 35.0 Rich Amber, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Rich Chocolate. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeRich ChocolateClosest overall alternative35.0 Rich AmberHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall85
Colour60%75#bb7c5c#b17e58Close colourColour difference 4.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98TanTanSameDepth difference: 1.1
Retailer descriptionRich deepNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Overall match 86/100Shade match 85/100Medium 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 $28 more
