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· Both claim a skin-like finish
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: deep with neutral red undertones
Matches: Same cool undertone· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · 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: very deep skin with a balance of warm & cool undertones
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly deeper · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium-full rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Same natural finish· Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than cool undertone· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than cool undertone · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: ultra deep with neutral brown undertones
Matches: Same cool undertone· Same natural finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Full rather than buildable coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
67
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Both claim a skin-like finish· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than cool undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
66
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 cool undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: very deep with a neutral undertone
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer 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 warm, peach undertones
Matches: Same natural finish· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than cool undertone· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
72
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 18% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than cool undertone · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: deep skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer 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: very deep skin with warm, peach undertones
Matches: Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than cool undertone· Matte rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
73
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than cool undertone · Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed
Retailer shade note: very deep with rich neutral undertones
$15.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$14.01 less (47%)4.2 (1,617)
Matches: Claims transfer resistance· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% 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
The closest shade to Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer 25C (Very deep · Cool 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
Too Faced Born This Way Super Coverage Multi-Use Concealer in Spiced Rum, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 25C. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade25CClosest matchSpiced RumHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%94#733923#733d25Very close colourColour difference 1.6 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared79
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
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%—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 publishedNormal, dry, combinationSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 90/100Shade match 96/100Medium 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 $9 more
