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 radiant finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Warm rather than olive undertone· Does not claim transfer resistance· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
91
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
53
Skin suitability
100
Looks identical · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Warm rather than olive undertone · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance · No SPF
Retailer shade note: for light to medium skin with yellow undertones
$8.74$12.49Ulta Beauty$51.26 less (85%)4.1 (11,038)
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same radiant finish· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Light rather than medium coverage· No long-wear claim· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
90
Looks identical · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Light rather than medium coverage · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol · No SPF
$56Ulta Beauty(product price)$4 less (7%)4.3 (618)
Matches: Very close colour· Same radiant finish· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Warm rather than olive undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
49
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Radiant · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Warm rather than olive undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: light medium with warm peach undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same medium coverage· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
68
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin · No SPF
Retailer shade note: light-medium with neutral undertones
The closest shade to Hourglass Illusion Luminous Glow Foundation SPF 30 7.5 (Medium light · Olive · warm olive 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
Fenty Beauty Pro Filt'r Fluid Flex Natural Matte Longwear Foundation in 256W, against Hourglass Illusion Luminous Glow Foundation SPF 30 in 7.5. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade7.5Closest shade match256WHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall94
Colour60%99#d2a37e#d1a27dLooks identicalColour difference 0.3 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared68
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a skin-like finish; your product does not list it
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall73
Longevity30%7012-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 12-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim transfer resistance
Settling20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim not settling into pores or fine lines
Colour stability15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims colour stability (no oxidation); your product does not list it
Comfort15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, combinationNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for normal/combination skin
Overall match 83/100Shade 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.
Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation in YN6, against Hourglass Illusion Luminous Glow Foundation SPF 30 in 7.5. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade7.5Closest overall alternativeYN6How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall94
Colour60%98#d2a37e#d3a47dLooks identicalColour difference 0.7 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared89
Finish35%100RadiantRadiantSameSame radiant finish
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium 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 compared70
Longevity30%7012-hour wear18-hour wearSome difference18-hour wear claimed against 12-hour wear
Transfer resistance20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match 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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, combinationNormal, dry, sensitiveBoth marketed for normal/dry skin
Overall match 87/100Shade 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.
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$16 less (27%)
