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: Near-identical swatch colour· Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Radiant rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
54
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
90
Looks identical · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 23% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance
Retailer shade note: light medium with warm golden undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Olive rather than cool undertone· Radiant rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
54
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
90
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 23% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than cool undertone · Radiant rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance
Retailer shade note: light medium with neutral olive undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same matte finish· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
70
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
70
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly warmer undertone · Medium rather than full coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for dry skin
Retailer shade note: L2.8 - Light to medium with warm undertones, and a peach tone
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Radiant rather than matte finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish & visual result
54
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
90
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 23% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance
Retailer shade note: light with warm olive undertones
The closest shade to Huda Beauty #FauxFilter Matte Buildable Coverage Waterproof Concealer Cotton Candy 2.3 Beige (Light · Cool · 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
Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 1.5, against Huda Beauty #FauxFilter Matte Buildable Coverage Waterproof Concealer in Cotton Candy 2.3 Beige. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeCotton Candy 2.3 BeigeClosest shade match1.5How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall82
Colour60%85#e8c39c#e6c1a3Close colourColour difference 3.1 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.7
Retailer descriptionLightFairSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish35%12MatteRadiantDifferentRadiant finish rather than matte
Coverage30%80FullMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than full (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a skin-like finish
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared61
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Transfer resistance20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match does not list it
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 overall50
Skin type100%50Normal, dry, oilyNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 73/100Shade match 82/100Medium 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.
Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear All Over Full Coverage Concealer in 220 Buff C, against Huda Beauty #FauxFilter Matte Buildable Coverage Waterproof Concealer in Cotton Candy 2.3 Beige. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
Coverage30%80FullMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than full (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a skin-like finish; the match does not list it
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim 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%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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall28
Skin type100%28Normal, dry, oilyDry, combination, sensitiveBoth marketed for dry skin
Overall match 75/100Shade match 79/100Medium 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$7 less (23%)
