Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation NC14.5 dupes and alternatives MAC Cosmetics
4.3 (1,197)·Light medium · 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.
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Same radiant finish
Differences: Medium rather than full coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines· Not marketed for combination/dry/oily/sensitive skin
Score details
Shade match
98
Finish & visual result
93
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
20
Looks identical · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination/dry/oily/sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Same radiant finish
Differences: Medium rather than full coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines· Not marketed for combination/dry/oily/sensitive skin
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
93
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
20
Looks identical · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination/dry/oily/sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
98
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry/oily skin
Retailer shade note: Light-medium with warm undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
80
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 0% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: medium-tan warm skin with golden undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same radiant finish· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Medium rather than full coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
93
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
20
Looks identical · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination/dry/oily/sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
98
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination/oily skin · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Same radiant finish
Differences: Medium rather than full coverage· No blurring effect claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
99
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 22% ingredient overlap
Differences: Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for combination/sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: medium with warm golden undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for oily/sensitive skin · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
49
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim transfer resistance
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily/sensitive skin
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Claims colour stability
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
98
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
58
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for oily/sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: light medium with warm undertone
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
93
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 NC14.5 (Light medium · 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
Jung Saem Mool Essential Skin Nuder Long-Lasting Hydrating Compact Cushion Foundation in 26W Oat, against MAC Cosmetics Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation in NC14.5. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeNC14.5Closest shade match26W OatHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall99
Colour60%98#dcaa83#daaa85Looks identicalColour difference 0.6 (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 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 Illusion Luminous Glow Foundation SPF 30 in 7, against MAC Cosmetics Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation in NC14.5. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeNC14.5Closest overall alternative7How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%94#dcaa83#e2aa82Very close colourColour difference 1.5 (0 is identical)
Overall match 90/100Shade match 96/100Medium 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.
SephoraCosts $3 more
