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: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Full rather than buildable coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
73
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 warm 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 13W (Medium light · Warm 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
bareMinerals ORIGINAL Liquid Mineral Brightening Concealer in Medium Tan 3.5W, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 13W. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade13WClosest shade matchMedium Tan 3.5WHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour60%85#d19e65#dca872Close colourColour difference 3.1 (0 is identical)
Skin-like finish20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a skin-like finish; the match does not list it
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared100
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim 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 overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 81/100Shade match 89/100Medium 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.
IT Cosmetics Bye Bye Under Eye Full Coverage Anti-Aging Water-Resistant Concealer in 23.5 Medium Amber, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 13W. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade13WClosest overall alternative23.5 Medium AmberHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour60%82#d19e65#d6a476Close colourColour difference 3.3 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared79
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%80BuildableFullCloseFull 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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared86
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim 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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedNormal, dry, combination, oily, sensitiveSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 84/100Shade match 89/100Medium 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.
Sephora
Ulta Beauty$18 less (60%)
View at CVS