Stretch Fluid Foundation for Buildable Coverage Medium Tan 5 dupes and alternatives Glossier
4.1 (490)·Tan · Cool 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 shade match: colour, depth and undertone only. Each row leads with its shade match; the overall match is beneath it.
Ranked by the shade match: colour, depth and undertone only. Each row leads with its shade match; the overall match is beneath it.
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same cool undertone· Both claim 8-hour wear
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish· Light rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
96
Finish & visual result
54
Wear & performance
70
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish · Light rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: medium tan with cool, rosy-beige
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same natural finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· No skin-like finish claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
86
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: very tan with neutral undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Both claim 12-hour wear· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
89
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: extra deep with neutral brown undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a skin-like finish· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
76
Wear & performance
63
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Radiant · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: medium dark with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
76
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 0% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: dark shade, neutral undertone
Matches: Very close colour· Same natural finish· Both claim a skin-like finish
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Full rather than medium coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
86
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Full rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: Medium Deep with Neutral Undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same natural finish· Both claim a skin-like finish
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin
The closest shade to Glossier Stretch Fluid Foundation for Buildable Coverage Medium Tan 5 (Tan · Cool 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
Charlotte Tilbury Unreal Skin Sheer Glow Tint Hydrating Foundation Stick in 11 Tan, against Glossier Stretch Fluid Foundation for Buildable Coverage in Medium Tan 5. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeMedium Tan 5Closest shade match11 TanHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall97
Colour60%95#ae7047#b37246Looks identicalColour difference 1.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%97TanTanSameDepth difference: 1.6
Retailer descriptionNot statedTanNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
Coverage30%60MediumLightSome differenceLight coverage rather than medium
Skin-like finish20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim 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 compared68
Longevity30%7012-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 12-hour wear; the match 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 overall0
Skin type100%0SensitiveNormal, dry, combinationMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 79/100Shade match 97/100High 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 Loose Talc-Free Mineral Powder Foundation SPF 15 in Golden Dark 25, against Glossier Stretch Fluid Foundation for Buildable Coverage in Medium Tan 5. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeMedium Tan 5Closest overall alternativeGolden Dark 25How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall87
Colour60%94#ae7047#a96f4bVery close colourColour difference 1.6 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98TanDeep tanCloseDepth difference: 1.1
Retailer descriptionNot statedDeepNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a skin-like finish; the match 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 compared72
Longevity30%4012-hour wearNot 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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall70
Skin type100%70SensitiveNormal, dry, combination, sensitiveBoth marketed for sensitive skin
Overall match 82/100Shade 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.
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 $21 more
