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: Same cool undertone· Claims a blurring effect· 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
80
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · 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: very deep skin with a balance of warm & cool undertones
Matches: Same cool undertone· Both claim a skin-like finish· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: extra rich skin tones with red undertones
Matches: Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
65
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
75
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly warmer undertone · Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed
Retailer shade note: rich deep with neutral golden undertones
Matches: Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Olive rather than cool undertone· Matte rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
65
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Olive rather than cool 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 very warm, golden or olive undertones
Matches: 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
65
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
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· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone· Matte rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
64
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · 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 very warm, rosy undertones
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Neutral rather than cool undertone· Matte rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
63
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Neutral rather than cool undertone · Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains drying alcohol
The closest shade to Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer 28C (Rich 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 shade match works
L'Oréal Paris Infallible Full Wear Waterproof Concealer in 445 Espresso, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 28C. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade28CClosest shade match445 EspressoHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall82
Colour60%83#522415#552811Close colourColour difference 3.2 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared61
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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared65
Longevity30%70Long-wearing24-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 24-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 publishedNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 72/100Shade match 82/100Medium 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 Brownie 8.5 Red, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 28C. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade28CClosest overall alternativeBrownie 8.5 RedHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall76
Colour60%65#522415#5a321aSlight colour differenceColour difference 5.6 (0 is identical)
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 73/100Shade match 76/100Medium 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 $2 more
