Fit Me Dewy + Smooth Foundation Soft Tan dupes and alternatives Maybelline
4.3 (75,747)·Light · Neutral · neutral 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.
The closest shade to Maybelline Fit Me Dewy + Smooth Foundation Soft Tan (Light · Neutral · neutral 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
J.Cat Beauty Aquasurance Compact Foundation in Light Beige, against Maybelline Fit Me Dewy + Smooth Foundation in Soft Tan. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeSoft TanClosest shade matchLight BeigeHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%97#f8b279#f7b07aLooks identicalColour difference 1.0 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.8
Retailer descriptionNot statedNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared40
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%20LightFullDifferentFull coverage rather than light
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a blurring or smoothing effect; your product does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 2 of 5 compared40
Longevity30%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists long wear
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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Dry, normalNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 72/100Shade match 98/100Medium 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.
NARS Pure Radiant Tinted Moisturizer SPF 30 in Cuzco, against Maybelline Fit Me Dewy + Smooth Foundation in Soft Tan. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeSoft TanClosest overall alternativeCuzcoHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%90#f8b279#f0b282Very close colourColour difference 2.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98LightLightSameDepth difference: 1.0
Retailer descriptionNot statedMediumNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared76
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%100LightLightSameSame light coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 1 of 5 compared100
Longevity30%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists long wear
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists not settling into pores or fine lines
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 overall100
Skin type100%100Dry, normalDry, normalBoth marketed for dry/normal skin
Overall match 89/100Shade match 90/100Medium 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.
33 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 $57.01 more
