Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation 110 dupes and alternatives Maybelline
4.2 (4,470)·Very fair · 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: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Same natural finish
Differences: Buildable rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
96
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Buildable rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · No SPF
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Same natural finish
Differences: Light rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
66
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Light rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: L1 - Very light with warm undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Same natural finish
Differences: Light rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
96
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
66
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Light rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: L1.5 - Light with warm undertones, and a yellow tone
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same natural finish· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
Retailer shade note: Ultra Fair skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Same natural finish
Differences: Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
96
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · No SPF
Retailer shade note: L0 - Very light with warm undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
80
Wear & performance
66
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 0% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Same natural finish
Differences: No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines· Not marketed for sensitive skin
Score details
Shade match
91
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than medium coverage· Not marketed for sensitive skin
Score details
Shade match
93
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than medium coverage · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance · No SPF
Retailer shade note: medium skin with warm, golden undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same natural finish· Claims 16-hour wear
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
52
Skin suitability
68
Looks identical · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · No SPF
Retailer shade note: level-one fair with a neutral undertone
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims long-wearing
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Matte · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains drying alcohol · No SPF
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish· Light rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
99
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
66
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish · Light rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin
The closest shade to Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation 110 (Very fair · 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
Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation in Y2, against Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation in 110. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade110Closest shade matchY2How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall99
Colour60%99#fbe1c1#fce1c1Looks identicalColour difference 0.4 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared81
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared59
Longevity30%40Not listed18-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims long wear; your product does not list it
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim not settling into pores or fine lines
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 overall73
Skin type100%73SensitiveNormal, dry, sensitiveBoth marketed for sensitive skin
Overall match 87/100Shade 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.
L'Oréal Paris Age Perfect Radiant Serum Foundation in 10 Ivory, against Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation in 110. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade110Closest overall alternative10 IvoryHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%96#fbe1c1#f8ddbfLooks identicalColour difference 1.3 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared89
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
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 · 2 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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim 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%100SensitiveSensitiveBoth marketed for sensitive skin
Overall match 92/100Shade 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.
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 $42.02 more
