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: 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
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 Airbrush Flawless Long-Wear Blur Concealer in 8 Medium-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 match8 Medium-TanHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall81
Colour60%82#f4b786#e4b487Close colourColour difference 3.4 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared60
Finish35%34SatinMatteDifferentMatte finish rather than satin
Coverage30%100FullFullSameSame full coverage
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-wearing24-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 24-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 overall60
Skin type100%60Dry, combination, normalNormal, dry, oilyBoth marketed for dry/normal skin
Overall match 72/100Shade 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.
bareMinerals ORIGINAL Liquid Mineral Brightening Concealer in Medium Tan 3.5N, 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 Tan 3.5NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall73
Colour60%73#f4b786#ddad7fClose colourColour difference 4.6 (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 75/100Shade match 73/100Medium 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
View at Walmart
