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 shade match: colour, depth and undertone only. Each row leads with its shade match; the overall match is beneath it.
Ranked by the shade match: colour, depth and undertone only. Each row leads with its shade match; the overall match is beneath it.
Matches: Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: D0 - medium-deep to deep with warm undertones
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
72
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: Both claim a skin-like finish· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than olive undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
70
Finish & visual result
76
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than olive undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · 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
68
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · 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: Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone
Score details
Shade match
61
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage
Retailer shade note: medium tan with warm golden undertones
The closest shade to Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer 16O (Medium tan · 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
Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear All Over Full Coverage Concealer in 460 Suede W, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 16O. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade16OClosest shade match460 Suede WHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall87
Colour60%94#bb844e#b87f4aVery close colourColour difference 1.7 (0 is identical)
Depth15%96Medium tanTanCloseDepth difference: 2.3
Retailer descriptionMedium tanMedium tanBoth described as medium tanThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish35%56NaturalMatteSome differenceMatte finish rather than natural
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 compared86
Longevity30%70Long-wearing24-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 24-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 publishedDry, combination, sensitiveSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 79/100Shade match 87/100Medium 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.
Rare Beauty Liquid Touch Brightening Concealer in 410N, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 16O. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade16OClosest overall alternative410NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall78
Colour60%76#bb844e#bc8760Close colourColour difference 4.2 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared82
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%—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 publishedOily, dry, combination, normalSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 81/100Shade match 78/100Medium 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 $6 more
