Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation 130 dupes and alternatives Maybelline
4.2 (4,470)·Light · 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 medium coverage
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish· Does not claim not settling into lines· Not marketed for sensitive skin
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
66
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains drying alcohol · No SPF
Retailer shade note: light medium with peach undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Same natural finish
Differences: Slightly deeper· Buildable rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · 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: 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
87
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 light skin with golden neutral undertones
Matches: Very close 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
86
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · 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: Light skin with golden-neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Same medium coverage
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish· Does not claim not settling into lines· Not marketed for sensitive skin
Score details
Shade match
96
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains drying alcohol · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Same natural finish· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Light rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
66
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Light rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · No SPF
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish· Light rather than medium coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
93
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish · Light rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close 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
84
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · 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: Light-Medium skin with a neutral undertone
Matches: Very close 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
83
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · 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: Light skin with neutral undertones
$15.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$1 less (6%)4.1 (9,493)
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Claims 30-hour wear
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
95
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains drying alcohol · No SPF
$15.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$1 less (6%)4.1 (9,493)
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Claims 30-hour wear
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
95
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains drying alcohol · No SPF
The closest shade to Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation 130 (Light · 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
bareMinerals ORIGINAL Loose Matte Talc-Free Mineral Powder Foundation SPF 15 in Light 08, against Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation in 130. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade130Closest shade matchLight 08How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall97
Colour60%96#f6bc85#f1b986Looks identicalColour difference 1.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%97LightLightSameDepth difference: 1.8
Retailer descriptionLightLightBoth described as lightThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared70
Finish35%56NaturalMatteSome differenceMatte 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%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 overall0
Skin type100%0SensitiveCombination, oilyMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 86/100Shade 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.
L'Oréal Paris Age Perfect Radiant Serum Foundation in 80 Golden Sun, against Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation in 130. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade130Closest overall alternative80 Golden SunHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall94
Colour60%91#f6bc85#ebb986Very close colourColour difference 2.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%96LightLightSameDepth difference: 2.6
Retailer descriptionLightNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
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 94/100Shade match 94/100Medium 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.