Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation 118 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 natural finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
66
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: neutral light with yellow undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Same medium coverage
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
66
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same natural finish· Claims 32-hour wear
Differences: Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
49
Skin suitability
68
Looks identical · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Very close colour· Same natural finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Does not claim not settling into lines· Not marketed for sensitive skin
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol · No SPF
Retailer shade note: for very fair skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same natural finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Slightly deeper· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol · No SPF
Retailer shade note: for very fair skin with rosy neutral undertones
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
65
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% 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: light skin with warm, golden undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims 24-hour wear
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Matte rather than natural finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Matte · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Matte rather than natural finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance · No SPF
The closest shade to Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation 118 (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
Pixi On-the-Glow BASE Foundation Moisture Stick in Beige, against Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation in 118. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade118Closest shade matchBeigeHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%97#fdd7b5#fcd7b3Looks identicalColour difference 0.9 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared89
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%100MediumBuildableCloseBuildable coverage rather than medium (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 · 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%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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall68
Skin type100%68SensitiveCombination, dry, normal, oily, sensitiveBoth marketed for sensitive skin
Overall match 86/100Shade 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.
J.Cat Beauty Perfextion Long Wearing Foundation in Porcelain, against Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation in 118. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade118Closest overall alternativePorcelainHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall97
Colour60%96#fdd7b5#fbd9b9Looks identicalColour difference 1.2 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared93
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%80MediumFullCloseFull coverage rather than medium (buildable: one step of tolerance)
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 · 4 of 5 compared65
Longevity30%40Not listedLong-wearingSome differenceThe match claims long wear; your product does not list it
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product does not list it
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 overall68
Skin type100%68SensitiveCombination, dry, normal, oily, sensitiveBoth marketed for sensitive skin
Overall match 90/100Shade match 97/100Medium 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.
Ulta BeautyCosts $6.01 more
Sephora
