Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation C3.5 dupes and alternatives MAC Cosmetics
4.3 (1,197)·Light medium · Warm · peach 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: Near-identical swatch colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim transfer resistance
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: for light medium skintones with warm olive undertones
The closest shade to MAC Cosmetics Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation C3.5 (Light medium · Warm · peach 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
Jung Saem Mool Essential Skin Nuder Long-Lasting Hydrating Compact Cushion Foundation in 26W Oat, against MAC Cosmetics Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation in C3.5. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeC3.5Closest shade match26W OatHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%97#d9a981#daaa85Looks identicalColour difference 1.0 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared62
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%80FullMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than full (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared61
Longevity30%7012-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 12-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match does not list it
Settling20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims not settling into pores or fine lines; the match 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, sensitiveDryBoth marketed for dry skin
Overall match 80/100Shade match 98/100High 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.
Fenty Beauty Pro Filt'r Fluid Flex Natural Matte Longwear Foundation in 206W, against MAC Cosmetics Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation in C3.5. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeC3.5Closest overall alternative206WHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall94
Colour60%99#d9a981#daa980Looks identicalColour difference 0.3 (0 is identical)
Overall match 82/100Shade match 94/100High 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.
31 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.
SephoraCosts $2 more
