PRO Soft Focus Longwear Foundation 14 dupes and alternatives LORAC
4.0 (122)·Medium · Warm · golden 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: Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly lighter· Olive rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish & visual result
67
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Olive rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Not marketed for oily/sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: Medium Tan with neutral olive undertones
The closest shade to LORAC PRO Soft Focus Longwear Foundation 14 (Medium · Warm · golden 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
Glossier Stretch Fluid Foundation for Buildable Coverage in Medium Tan 1, against LORAC PRO Soft Focus Longwear Foundation in 14. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade14Closest shade matchMedium Tan 1How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall87
Colour60%93#c0965a#c0935cVery close colourColour difference 1.9 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98MediumMediumSameDepth difference: 1.1
Retailer descriptionMedium tanNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish35%56MatteNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than matte
Coverage30%80FullMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than full (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a skin-like finish; your product does not list it
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared68
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%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 overall20
Skin type100%20Combination, dry, normal, oily, sensitiveSensitiveBoth marketed for sensitive skin
Overall match 73/100Shade match 87/100Medium 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.
RMS Beauty ReEvolve Natural Finish Foundation in 66, against LORAC PRO Soft Focus Longwear Foundation in 14. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade14Closest overall alternative66How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall81
Colour60%68#c0965a#d0924dSlight colour differenceColour difference 5.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99MediumMediumSameDepth difference: 0.8
Retailer descriptionMedium tanNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Overall match 77/100Shade match 81/100Medium 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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $7 more
