Small Glitter Eyeshadow Oh So Gilty dupes and alternatives MAC Cosmetics
4.8 (590)·Golden · Light
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth, undertone and colour family only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar eyeshadow overall: shade match 55%, finish, pigmentation and format 30%, wear and performance 10%, comfort and skin suitability 5%.
Overall alternativesShade matchesRanked by the overall match: the most similar eyeshadow on shade, finish, wear and comfort 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 eyeshadow on shade, finish, wear and comfort and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Differences: Cream rather than powder (format)· Long-wearing rather than 12-hour wear (longevity)· Does not claim crease resistance
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish, pigmentation & format
88
Wear & performance
59
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Glitter
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Cream rather than powder (format) · Long-wearing rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort
Differences: Cream rather than powder (format)· Long-wearing rather than 12-hour wear (longevity)· Does not claim crease resistance
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish, pigmentation & format
74
Wear & performance
55
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Metallic · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Cream rather than powder (format) · Long-wearing rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort
Differences: Shimmer rather than glitter (finish)· Not listed rather than 12-hour wear (longevity)· Does not claim crease resistance
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish, pigmentation & format
74
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Shimmer · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Shimmer rather than glitter (finish) · Not listed rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort
Differences: Cream rather than powder (format)· 24-hour wear rather than 12-hour wear (longevity)· Does not claim crease resistance
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish, pigmentation & format
74
Wear & performance
37
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Metallic
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Cream rather than powder (format) · 24-hour wear rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort
Matches: Same finish: glitter· Both claim crease resistance· Claims waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Stick rather than powder (format)· Long-wearing rather than 12-hour wear (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish, pigmentation & format
88
Wear & performance
73
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Glitter · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Stick rather than powder (format) · Long-wearing rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim comfort
Differences: Green rather than golden· Liquid rather than powder (format)· Not listed rather than 12-hour wear (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish, pigmentation & format
80
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Very close colour · Duochrome
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Green rather than golden · Liquid rather than powder (format) · Not listed rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort
Retailer shade note: bright gold to pinky copper to metallic olive multichrome finish
Differences: Deeper· Bronze rather than golden· Liquid rather than powder (format)
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish, pigmentation & format
71
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
100
Close colour · Metallic
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Deeper · Bronze rather than golden · Liquid rather than powder (format) · Not listed rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Cream rather than powder (format)· Long-wearing rather than 12-hour wear (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish, pigmentation & format
74
Wear & performance
59
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Metallic · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Cream rather than powder (format) · Long-wearing rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort
Differences: Shimmer rather than glitter (finish)· Not listed rather than 12-hour wear (longevity)· Does not claim crease resistance
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish, pigmentation & format
74
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Shimmer · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Shimmer rather than glitter (finish) · Not listed rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort
Retailer shade note: champagne sparkle with pink flip pearl, copper sparkle with pink flip pearl
$18Ulta Beauty(product price)$8 less (31%)3.5 (165)
Matches: Both claim crease resistance· Claims waterproof
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Deeper· Cream rather than powder (format)
Score details
Shade match
70
Finish, pigmentation & format
74
Wear & performance
73
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Metallic
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Deeper · Cream rather than powder (format) · Long-wearing rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim comfort
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Deeper· Stick rather than powder (format)
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish, pigmentation & format
74
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Metallic · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Deeper · Stick rather than powder (format) · Not listed rather than 12-hour wear (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort
Matches: Very close colour· Same longevity: 12-hour wear· Claims waterproof
Differences: Nude rather than golden· Shimmer rather than glitter (finish)· Stick rather than powder (format)
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish, pigmentation & format
61
Wear & performance
70
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Very close colour · Shimmer
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Nude rather than golden · Shimmer rather than glitter (finish) · Stick rather than powder (format) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort
Jane Iredale PurePressed Eye Shadow Triple in Honeysuckle, against MAC Cosmetics Small Glitter Eyeshadow in Oh So Gilty. Matched on pan 2. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeOh So GiltyClosest shade matchHoneysuckleHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall97
Colour60%96#f1b28a#ebb18bLooks identicalColour difference 1.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98LightLightSameDepth difference 1.3 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone—not comparableNot listedNot listedUndertone unknown on one side
Colour family25%100GoldenGoldenSameSame colour family
Finish, pigmentation & format30% of overall · 2 of 3 compared19
Finish65%0GlitterMatteDifferentMatte finish rather than glitter
Pigmentation20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot listed for eitherNeither product lists an opacity
Format15%100PowderPowderSameBoth powder
Wear & performance10% of overall · 2 of 3 compared81
Longevity50%7012-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 12-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
Comfort & skin suitability5% of overall · 2 of 3 compared40
Comfort40%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable feel; the match does not list it
Hydration20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims hydration; your product does not list it
Skin types40%—not comparableNot listedSensitiveNot listed for eitherSkin types not listed for one product
Overall match 69/100Shade 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.
Charlotte Tilbury Exagger-Eyes Waterproof Eyeshadow Stick in Satin Diamonds, against MAC Cosmetics Small Glitter Eyeshadow in Oh So Gilty. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeOh So GiltyClosest overall alternativeSatin DiamondsHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall86
Colour60%79#f1b28a#f8ba9cClose colourColour difference 3.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%91LightLightSameDepth difference 4.2 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone—not comparableNot listedNot listedUndertone unknown on one side
Colour family25%100GoldenGoldenSameSame colour family
Finish, pigmentation & format30% of overall · 2 of 3 compared88
Finish65%100GlitterGlitterSameSame glitter finish
Pigmentation20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot listed for eitherNeither product lists an opacity
Format15%35PowderStickDifferentStick rather than powder
Wear & performance10% of overall56
Longevity50%3512-hour wear24-hour wearDifferent24-hour wear claimed against 12-hour wear
Waterproof20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims waterproof wear; your product does not list it
Comfort & skin suitability5% of overall · 2 of 3 compared40
Comfort40%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable feel; the match does not list it
Hydration20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims hydration; your product does not list it
Skin types40%—not comparableNot listedNormal, Dry, OilyNot listed for eitherSkin types not listed for one product
Overall match 81/100Shade match 86/100Medium 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, undertone and colour family; the overall match on shade match, finish, pigmentation and format, wear and performance and comfort and suitability. A pair with no swatch colour on one side or Low data confidence is listed without a score. 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 $1 more
