Hydrating Camo Concealer Tan Neutral dupes and alternatives e.l.f. Cosmetics
4.3 (8,153)·Light medium · Neutral 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: Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone· Radiant rather than satin finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
72
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
100
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: MD2.6 - medium-deep with warm undertones, and an olive tone
Matches: Claims a skin-like finish· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly deeper· Slightly warmer undertone· Radiant rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
59
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Same full coverage· Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly deeper· Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
60
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Slightly warmer undertone · Matte rather than satin finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry skin · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: for medium to tan skin with golden undertones
Matches: Same full coverage· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone· Matte rather than satin finish· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
60
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 28% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone · Matte rather than satin finish · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: medium to tan skin with very warm, golden or olive undertones
Matches: Same full coverage· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than satin finish· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish & visual result
60
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 28% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Matte rather than satin finish · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: medium to tan skin with warm, golden undertones
Matches: Same full coverage· Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly deeper· Slightly cooler undertone· Matte rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish & visual result
60
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Slightly cooler undertone · Matte rather than satin finish · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for combination skin
The closest shade to e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer Tan Neutral (Light medium · Neutral 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
bareMinerals ORIGINAL Liquid Mineral Brightening Concealer in Medium Tan 3.5N, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Tan Neutral. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeTan NeutralClosest shade matchMedium Tan 3.5NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall87
Colour60%79#e5a778#ddad7fClose colourColour difference 3.7 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared67
Finish35%56SatinLuminousSome differenceLuminous 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 82/100Shade match 87/100Medium 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 23.5 Medium Amber, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Tan Neutral. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeTan NeutralClosest overall alternative23.5 Medium AmberHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall79
Colour60%82#e5a778#d6a476Close colourColour difference 3.4 (0 is identical)
Overall match 83/100Shade match 79/100Medium 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.
Sephora
Ulta BeautyCosts $23 more
View at Target
