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: Very close colour· Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
50
Very 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: MD2.75 - medium-deep with warm undertones, and a deep peach tone
The closest shade to Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer 20O (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
NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Chocolat, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 20O. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade20OClosest shade matchChocolatHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall88
Colour60%95#bf804a#c4804aLooks identicalColour difference 1.3 (0 is identical)
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant 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 · 4 of 5 compared65
Longevity30%70Long-wearing16-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 16-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product does not list it
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, combinationSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 77/100Shade match 88/100Medium 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 20O. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade20OClosest overall alternative410NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall77
Colour60%75#bf804a#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 80/100Shade match 77/100Medium 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 $2 more
