Essential Skin Nuder Long-Lasting Hydrating Compact Cushion Foundation 19W Light dupes and alternatives Jung Saem Mool
4.6 (18)·Fair · 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.
The closest shade to Jung Saem Mool Essential Skin Nuder Long-Lasting Hydrating Compact Cushion Foundation 19W Light (Fair · 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
Maybelline Lifter Plump & Glow Foundation Hyaluronic Acid in 110, against Jung Saem Mool Essential Skin Nuder Long-Lasting Hydrating Compact Cushion Foundation in 19W Light. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade19W LightClosest shade match110How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall99
Colour60%99#eec9a9#eec8a7Looks identicalColour difference 0.4 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99FairFairSameDepth difference: 0.4
Retailer descriptionLightFairSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared76
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
Coverage30%100MediumBuildableCloseBuildable coverage rather than medium (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared68
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
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 overall68
Skin type100%68DryCombination, dry, normal, oily, sensitiveBoth marketed for dry skin
Overall match 87/100Shade match 99/100Medium 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.
Hourglass Vanish Seamless Finish Foundation Stick in 5.5 Natural, against Jung Saem Mool Essential Skin Nuder Long-Lasting Hydrating Compact Cushion Foundation in 19W Light. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade19W LightClosest overall alternative5.5 NaturalHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall97
Colour60%96#eec9a9#efcdaeLooks identicalColour difference 1.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%97FairFairSameDepth difference: 1.7
Retailer descriptionLightLightBoth described as lightThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared82
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%60MediumFullSome differenceFull coverage rather than medium
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 2 of 5 compared80
Longevity30%70Long-wearing12-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 12-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 overall73
Skin type100%73DryNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for dry skin
Overall match 89/100Shade match 97/100Medium 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.
32 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
Ulta BeautyCosts $7 more
