Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation NC65 dupes and alternatives MAC Cosmetics
4.3 (1,197)·Very deep · 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 shade match: colour, depth and undertone only. Each row leads with its shade match; the overall match is beneath it.
Ranked by the shade match: colour, depth and undertone only. Each row leads with its shade match; the overall match is beneath it.
Matches: Same warm undertone· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Light rather than full coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
46
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
100
Close colour · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Light rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same full coverage· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
57
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: deep skin with neutral red undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim transfer resistance
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
73
Skin suitability
40
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for combination/oily/sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: richest with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same full coverage· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· Matte rather than radiant finish· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
57
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · Matte rather than radiant finish · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: deep skin with neutral olive undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than full coverage· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
54
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Matte · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than full coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim 16-hour wear
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · 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 oily/sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: deepest with neutral undertones
Matches: Same radiant finish· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Medium rather than full coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination/normal skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: deep complexion with neutral undertones
Matches: Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim transfer resistance· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
77
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Medium rather than full coverage · Not marketed for combination/sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Same full coverage· Both claim not settling into lines· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly deeper· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural matte rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
60
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
80
Close colour · Natural matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural matte rather than radiant finish · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: Very Deep with Neutral Undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim 16-hour wear
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · 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 oily/sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: deepest with cool rose undertones
The closest shade to MAC Cosmetics Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation NC65 (Very deep · 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
Danessa Myricks Beauty Yummy Skin Soothing Serum Skin Tint Foundation in 14, against MAC Cosmetics Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation in NC65. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeNC65Closest shade match14How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%85#694435#6a3d2dVery close colourColour difference 3.0 (0 is identical)
Overall match 81/100Shade match 91/100Medium 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 Ambient Soft Glow Foundation in 14.5, against MAC Cosmetics Studio Radiance Serum Powered Foundation in NC65. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeNC65Closest overall alternative14.5How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall87
Colour60%81#694435#704a34Close colourColour difference 3.5 (0 is identical)
Overall match 83/100Shade 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.
30 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 Beauty(product price)Costs $5.50 more
