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· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Olive rather than neutral undertone· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
84
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 neutral 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: deeper skin with very warm, golden or olive undertones
The closest shade to Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer 24N (Deep · Neutral 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 Deep 6C, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 24N. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade24NClosest shade matchDeep 6CHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall88
Colour60%94#874c2a#874f31Very close colourColour difference 1.5 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98DeepDeepSameDepth difference: 1.2
Retailer descriptionDeepVery deepSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
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 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.
Rare Beauty Liquid Touch Brightening Concealer in 530N, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 24N. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade24NClosest overall alternative530NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall84
Colour60%77#874c2a#8d5838Close colourColour difference 4.0 (0 is identical)
Depth15%86DeepDeepSameDepth difference: 5.7
Retailer descriptionDeepDeepBoth described as deepThe retailers describe the same depth
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 84/100Shade match 84/100Medium 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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $6 more
