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: Same natural finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly warmer undertone · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Same natural finish· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly deeper· Slightly warmer undertone· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Slightly warmer undertone · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Same natural finish· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly warmer undertone · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Same natural finish· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
78
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly warmer undertone · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Same natural finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone· Full rather than buildable coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than olive undertone · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
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 shade match works
Clinique Even Better All-Over Concealer + Eraser in WN 112 Ginger, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 12O. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade12OClosest shade matchWN 112 GingerHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall84
Colour60%86#d09c63#cf945cVery close colourColour difference 2.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%95MediumMediumSameDepth difference: 3.1
Retailer descriptionMediumMediumBoth described as mediumThe retailers describe the same depth
Coverage30%100BuildableMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than buildable (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a skin-like finish; the match does not list it
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 publishedNormal, dry, oilySkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 81/100Shade match 84/100Medium 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.
Hourglass Vanish Airbrush Full Coverage Longwear Concealer in Dune 7.5, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 12O. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade12OClosest overall alternativeDune 7.5How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall83
Colour60%86#d09c63#d89b65Very close colourColour difference 2.9 (0 is identical)
Coverage30%80BuildableFullCloseFull 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 compared86
Longevity30%70Long-wearing16-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 16-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
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 overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedNormal, dry, combinationSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 82/100Shade match 83/100High 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 $9 more
