Triclone Skin Tech Medium Coverage Foundation 100 Light dupes and alternatives Haus Labs
4.0 (5,671)·Fair · Warm · peach 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.
The closest shade to Haus Labs Triclone Skin Tech Medium Coverage Foundation 100 Light (Fair · Warm · peach 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
Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation in P1, against Haus Labs Triclone Skin Tech Medium Coverage Foundation in 100 Light. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade100 LightClosest shade matchP1How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall94
Colour60%90#f4cebb#f5d0b8Very close colourColour difference 2.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99FairVery fairCloseDepth difference: 0.7
Retailer descriptionNot statedFairNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared81
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared54
Longevity30%70Long-wearing18-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 18-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims not settling into pores or fine lines; your product does not list it
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 overall100
Skin type100%100Normal, dry, sensitiveNormal, dry, sensitiveBoth marketed for normal/dry/sensitive skin
Overall match 85/100Shade match 94/100High 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.
Benefit Cosmetics The POREfessional Blurring & Smoothing Foundation in 4N Wonder, against Haus Labs Triclone Skin Tech Medium Coverage Foundation in 100 Light. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade100 LightClosest overall alternative4N WonderHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%93#f4cebb#ebc9b6Very close colourColour difference 1.9 (0 is identical)
Depth15%95FairFairSameDepth difference: 3.1
Retailer descriptionNot statedFairNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared100
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 2 of 5 compared80
Longevity30%70Long-wearing24-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 24-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists 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 overall28
Skin type100%28Normal, dry, sensitiveNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for normal skin
Overall match 88/100Shade match 91/100High 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.
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.
SephoraCosts $17 more
