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· Same full coverage· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone· Matte rather than satin finish· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
60
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
60
Very 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· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than satin finish· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
65
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 24% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Matte rather than satin finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains drying alcohol
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
73
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: tan skin with warm, golden undertones
Matches: Same full coverage· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than satin finish
Score details
Shade match
72
Finish & visual result
60
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 28% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · 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
The closest shade to e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer Tan Walnut (Medium light · Neutral · neutral pink 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 Infallible Full Wear Waterproof Concealer in 385 Amber, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Tan Walnut. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeTan WalnutClosest shade match385 AmberHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall86
Colour60%89#dfa57d#dda373Very close colourColour difference 2.5 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared65
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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
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 overall50
Skin type100%50Dry, combination, normalNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 75/100Shade match 86/100Medium 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.
Tarte Shape Tape Full Coverage Matte Concealer in 38N medium-tan neutral, against e.l.f. Cosmetics Hydrating Camo Concealer in Tan Walnut. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeTan WalnutClosest overall alternative38N medium-tan neutralHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall85
Colour60%83#dfa57d#d3a081Close colourColour difference 3.2 (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 · 3 of 5 compared72
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%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, combination, oilyBoth marketed for combination/normal skin
Overall match 76/100Shade 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
View at Walmart