CC+ Nude Glow Lightweight Foundation + Glow Serum Tan Cool dupes and alternatives IT Cosmetics
4.4 (7,609)·Light medium · 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 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: Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
56
Colour not compared · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Not marketed for 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 cool undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
71
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 cool undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
75
Wear & performance
85
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
Retailer shade note: tan skin with warm neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
75
Wear & performance
85
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
Retailer shade note: tan skin with warm undertones
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Radiant · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Same radiant finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than cool undertone· Light rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
30
Very close colour · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 18% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than cool undertone · Light rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Not marketed for oily/sensitive skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same radiant finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Light rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
30
Very close colour · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 18% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Light rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Not marketed for oily/sensitive skin
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a skin-like finish· No fragrance listed
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Light rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
75
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Light rather than medium coverage · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Same radiant finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Light rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
30
Very close colour · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 18% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Light rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · Not marketed for oily/sensitive skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same cool undertone· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
93
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
63
Skin suitability
28
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 · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin · No SPF
Retailer shade note: rosy beige with rosy undertone for light to medium skin
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a blurring effect· Claims colour stability
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
55
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 18% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · No long-wear claim · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Same cool undertone· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
91
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
28
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 18% ingredient overlap
Differences: 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: medium to tan skin with a balance of warm & cool undertones
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
80
Skin suitability
84
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 24% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: golden beige shade with warm undertones
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 a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Olive rather than cool undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than cool undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for dry skin · No SPF
Matches: Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly deeper· Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
54
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
56
Colour not compared · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
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
73
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· Claims a blurring effect· No fragrance listed
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
86
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 cool 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: 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
70
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
The closest shade to IT Cosmetics CC+ Nude Glow Lightweight Foundation + Glow Serum Tan Cool (Light medium · 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
Rare Beauty True to Myself Natural Matte Longwear Foundation in 22 Medium Cool, against IT Cosmetics CC+ Nude Glow Lightweight Foundation + Glow Serum in Tan Cool. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeTan CoolClosest shade match22 Medium CoolHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall95
Colour60%92#eaa37b#eca684Very close colourColour difference 2.0 (0 is identical)
Overall match 79/100Shade match 95/100Medium 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.
L.A. Girl Pro Coverage Liquid Foundation in Porcelain, against IT Cosmetics CC+ Nude Glow Lightweight Foundation + Glow Serum in Tan Cool. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeTan CoolClosest overall alternativePorcelainHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour60%95#eaa37b#e5a57fLooks identicalColour difference 1.5 (0 is identical)
Overall match 84/100Shade 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%)
