Hydrating Camo Concealer Tan Sand dupes and alternatives e.l.f. Cosmetics
4.3 (8,153)·Light · Olive 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: Very close colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone· Radiant rather than satin finish· Medium-full rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
67
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium-full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium-full rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: tan with neutral/golden undertones
Matches: Same full coverage· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
90
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 22% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly warmer undertone · Matte rather than satin finish · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: for medium to tan skin w/ warm undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Radiant rather than satin finish· Medium-full rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
67
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium-full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium-full rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Same full coverage· Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone· Matte rather than satin finish· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
60
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone · Matte rather than satin finish · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for combination skin
Retailer shade note: Medium Tan with neutral undertones
Matches: Same full coverage· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
60
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 28% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · 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
Differences: Slightly deeper· Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
78
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
0
Close colour · Natural finish
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than satin finish · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry/combination/normal skin
Differences: Slightly deeper· Slightly warmer undertone· Radiant rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
100
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: medium tan with warm peach undertones
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Radiant rather than satin finish· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish & visual result
78
Wear & performance
59
Skin suitability
0
Close colour · Radiant finish
Ingredients (not scored): 25% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry/combination/normal skin
Differences: Slightly lighter· Natural rather than satin finish· No long-wear claim
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: Slightly lighter · Natural rather than satin finish · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry/combination/normal skin
Matches: Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· Described as medium, yours as tan· Slightly warmer 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, yours as tan · Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium rather than full coverage
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral peach undertones
Low confidence· Digital matchRetailer descriptions disagree: described as medium, yours as tan
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Described as medium, yours as tan· Neutral rather than olive 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, yours as tan · Neutral rather than olive undertone · Radiant rather than satin finish · Medium rather than full coverage
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral beige undertones
Low confidence· Digital matchRetailer descriptions disagree: described as medium, yours as tan
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Described as very fair, yours as tan· Neutral rather than olive undertone· Luminous rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
40
Finish & visual result
67
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Luminous · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Described as very fair, yours as tan · Neutral rather than olive undertone · Luminous rather than satin finish · Buildable rather than full coverage
Retailer shade note: for very fair neutral skin with peach undertones
Low confidence· Digital matchRetailer descriptions disagree: described as very fair, yours as tan
The closest shade to e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer Tan Sand (Light · Olive 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
Charlotte Tilbury Beautiful Skin Medium to Full Coverage Radiant Concealer in 11.75 Tan, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Tan Sand. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeTan SandClosest shade match11.75 TanHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall87
Colour60%78#f4b786#ffb173Close colourColour difference 3.9 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.7
Retailer descriptionTanTanBoth described as tanThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared70
Finish35%78SatinRadiantCloseRadiant finish rather than satin
Coverage30%80FullMedium-fullCloseMedium-full coverage rather than full
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 compared68
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%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 overall67
Skin type100%67Dry, combination, normalDry, normalBoth marketed for dry/normal skin
Overall match 79/100Shade 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.
Glossier Stretch Concealer for Dewy Buildable Coverage in Medium 1, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Tan Sand. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeTan SandClosest overall alternativeMedium 1How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall78
Colour60%76#f4b786#e6ba8fClose colourColour difference 4.1 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.7
Retailer descriptionTanNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared79
Finish35%78SatinRadiantCloseRadiant 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 80/100Shade 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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $14 more
View at Walmart
