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.
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
Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 7.5, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Tan Neutral. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeTan NeutralClosest shade match7.5How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall81
Colour60%85#e5a778#d9a079Close colourColour difference 3.0 (0 is identical)
Finish35%78SatinRadiantCloseRadiant finish rather than satin
Coverage30%60FullMediumSome differenceMedium coverage rather than full
Skin-like finish20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a skin-like finish; your product does not list it
Blurring15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a blurring or smoothing effect; your product does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared82
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
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 overall50
Skin type100%50Dry, combination, normalNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 74/100Shade 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.
NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Walnut, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Tan Neutral. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeTan NeutralClosest overall alternativeWalnutHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall78
Colour60%76#e5a778#e9a060Close colourColour difference 4.1 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared72
Finish35%78SatinRadiantCloseRadiant finish rather than satin
Coverage30%80FullMediumCloseMedium 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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a blurring or smoothing effect; your product does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared65
Longevity30%70Long-wearing16-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 16-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product does not list it
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 overall100
Skin type100%100Dry, combination, normalNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for dry/combination/normal skin
Overall match 75/100Shade match 78/100Medium 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 Beauty(product price)Costs $24 more
View at Target
