Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth and undertone only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar concealer 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 concealer 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 concealer on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Matches: Both claim a skin-like finish· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish & visual result
76
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: medium with a peach undertone
The closest shade to Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer 12O (Medium · Olive undertone) in each foundation range, compared on measured colour, depth and undertone. Price never changes the order.
Foundation shade colours are sampled from retailer swatch images, so check the shade on the retailer page before buying.
Why the closest match works
Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 6, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 12O. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade12OClosest match6How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall80
Colour60%69#d09c63#cea67eSlight colour differenceColour difference 5.0 (0 is identical)
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
Coverage30%100BuildableMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than buildable (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim 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 · 3 of 5 compared82
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim 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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 78/100Shade match 80/100Medium 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.
SephoraCosts $12 more
View at Ulta Beauty
