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· 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
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 match works
Clinique Even Better All-Over Concealer + Eraser in WN 100 Deep Honey, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 16O. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade16OClosest matchWN 100 Deep HoneyHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall72
Colour60%71#bb844e#ca9260Close colourColour difference 4.7 (0 is identical)
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 74/100Shade match 72/100Medium 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 $4 more
