Pro Filt'r Soft Matte Longwear Foundation 210 dupes and alternatives Fenty Beauty
4.4 (23,672)·Light medium · Neutral · neutral golden undertone
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth and undertone only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar foundation 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 foundation 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 foundation on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same matte finish· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone· Medium rather than full coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
91
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 19% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for normal skin
Retailer shade note: light-medium with warm olive undertones
The closest shade to Fenty Beauty Pro Filt'r Soft Matte Longwear Foundation 210 (Light medium · Neutral · neutral golden undertone) in each concealer range, compared on measured colour, depth and undertone. Price never changes the order.
Concealer 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 Age Perfect Radiant Serum Foundation in Sand, against Fenty Beauty Pro Filt'r Soft Matte Longwear Foundation in 210. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade210Closest shade matchSandHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%97#e1ad85#e0ab80Looks identicalColour difference 1.0 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared67
Finish35%56MatteNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than matte
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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared59
Longevity30%40Long-wearingNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall0
Skin type100%0Normal, combination, oilySensitiveMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 80/100Shade match 98/100Medium 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.
Maybelline Fit Me Matte + Poreless Foundation in Rich Tan 238, against Fenty Beauty Pro Filt'r Soft Matte Longwear Foundation in 210. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade210Closest overall alternativeRich Tan 238How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall97
Colour60%96#e1ad85#e4b187Looks identicalColour difference 1.2 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared91
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte finish
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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared54
Longevity30%70Long-wearing12-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 12-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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall67
Skin type100%67Normal, combination, oilyNormal, oilyBoth marketed for normal/oily skin
Overall match 88/100Shade match 97/100Medium 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.
32 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.