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· Same warm undertone· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
91
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: deep skin with warm, peach undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: deep skin with very warm, golden or olive undertones
Matches: Same warm undertone· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: deeper skin with warm, golden undertones
The closest shade to Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer 23W (Deep · 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
MAC Cosmetics Studio Fix 36HR Smooth Angles Hydrating Concealer in NC50, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 23W. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade23WClosest shade matchNC50How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%87#995b34#965431Very close colourColour difference 2.7 (0 is identical)
Depth15%95DeepDeepSameDepth difference: 3.0
Retailer descriptionDeepDeepBoth described as deepThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish35%56NaturalMatteSome differenceMatte finish rather than natural
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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a blurring or smoothing effect; your product does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared75
Longevity30%70Long-wearing36-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 36-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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedDry, normal, combination, oilySkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 79/100Shade match 92/100Medium 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.
Huda Beauty #FauxFilter Matte Buildable Coverage Waterproof Concealer in Butterscotch 7.5 Golden, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 23W. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade23WClosest overall alternativeButterscotch 7.5 GoldenHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall88
Colour60%82#995b34#a75e35Close colourColour difference 3.4 (0 is identical)
Depth15%92DeepDeep tanCloseDepth difference: 3.8
Retailer descriptionDeepDeep tanSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish35%56NaturalMatteSome differenceMatte finish rather than natural
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 · 4 of 5 compared75
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
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, oilySkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 80/100Shade 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.
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
