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· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish· Medium-full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium-full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium-full rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Both claim a skin-like finish
Differences: Slightly lighter· Radiant rather than natural finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
74
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · 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 neutral undertone· Both claim a skin-like finish· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Radiant rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
60
Finish & visual result
76
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Visibly different colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · 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
The closest shade to Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer 26N (Rich 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
Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Dark Circle Treatment Concealer in 175, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 26N. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade26NClosest shade match175How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%92#63301b#5e301fVery close colourColour difference 1.9 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared50
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
Coverage30%—not comparableBuildableNot listedNot comparedCoverage not listed for one product
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 compared59
Longevity30%40Long-wearingNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedSensitiveSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 74/100Shade match 91/100Medium 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.
Charlotte Tilbury Beautiful Skin Medium to Full Coverage Radiant Concealer in 17.75 Deep, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 26N. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade26NClosest overall alternative17.75 DeepHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall83
Colour60%74#63301b#552c1fClose colourColour difference 4.4 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared82
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
Coverage30%100BuildableMedium-fullCloseMedium-full 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 compared68
Longevity30%70Long-wearing16-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 16-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
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 publishedDry, normalSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 79/100Shade match 83/100Medium 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(product price)Costs $6 more
Sephora
