CC+ Nude Glow Lightweight Foundation + Glow Serum Rich Honey dupes and alternatives IT Cosmetics
4.4 (7,609)·Medium light · Warm 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: Very close colour· Same medium coverage· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for oily skin · Contains drying alcohol · No SPF
Matches: Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
56
Colour not compared · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
$18.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$20.01 less (51%)4.2 (18,317)
Matches: Very close colour· Same medium coverage
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· No skin-like finish claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
68
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
56
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same medium coverage· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 20% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains drying alcohol · No SPF
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Claims not settling into lines· Claims colour stability
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Light rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
63
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Light rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Matches: Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing· No fragrance listed
Differences: Slightly deeper· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
80
Skin suitability
84
Colour not compared · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
30
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin · No SPF
Matches: Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
58
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
56
Colour not compared · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· No skin-like finish claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
68
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
56
Colour not compared · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Claims not settling into lines· Claims colour stability
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Light rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
63
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Light rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Matches: Very close colour· Similar undertone (neutral vs warm)· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
56
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a skin-like finish· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
54
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
30
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 20% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily/sensitive skin · No SPF
$16Ulta Beauty(product price)$23 less (59%)4.3 (699)
Matches: Very close colour· Same medium coverage· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a blurring effect· Claims not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
63
Skin suitability
28
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin · No SPF
Retailer shade note: beige with neutral undertone for light to medium skin
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a blurring effect· No fragrance listed
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
30
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 34% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
73
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
28
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 18% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin · No SPF
Retailer shade note: tan skin with a balance of warm & cool undertones
Matches: Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing· No fragrance listed
Differences: Slightly lighter· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
60
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
80
Skin suitability
84
Colour not compared · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close colour· Same radiant finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Described as light medium, yours as deep tan· Slightly cooler undertone· Light rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
40
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
28
Very close colour · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Described as light medium, yours as deep tan · Slightly cooler undertone · Light rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for oily/sensitive skin · No SPF
Retailer shade note: Light medium with cool undertones
Low confidence· Digital matchRetailer descriptions disagree: described as light medium, yours as deep tan
The closest shade to IT Cosmetics CC+ Nude Glow Lightweight Foundation + Glow Serum Rich Honey (Medium light · Warm 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
Tarte Amazonian Clay 16-Hour Full Coverage Foundation in 51S Deep Sand, against IT Cosmetics CC+ Nude Glow Lightweight Foundation + Glow Serum in Rich Honey. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeRich HoneyClosest shade match51S Deep SandHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%97#d59d7f#d09b7eLooks identicalColour difference 1.0 (0 is identical)
Finish35%12RadiantMatteDifferentMatte finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%80MediumFullCloseFull coverage rather than medium (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%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%70Long-wearing16-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 16-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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall28
Skin type100%28Dry, oily, sensitiveNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for oily skin
Overall match 76/100Shade 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.
Haus Labs Triclone Skin Tech Medium Coverage Foundation in 250 Light Medium, against IT Cosmetics CC+ Nude Glow Lightweight Foundation + Glow Serum in Rich Honey. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeRich HoneyClosest overall alternative250 Light MediumHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour60%96#d59d7f#d59c81Looks identicalColour difference 1.2 (0 is identical)
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than radiant
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 · 2 of 5 compared100
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
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 overall60
Skin type100%60Dry, oily, sensitiveNormal, dry, sensitiveBoth marketed for dry/sensitive skin
Overall match 83/100Shade match 89/100Medium 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
Target$9 less (23%)
