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 neutral undertone· Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Radiant rather than natural finish· Medium-full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Radiant · Medium-full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium-full rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: deepest 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
83
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: 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
83
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 very warm, rosy undertones
Differences: Slightly lighter · 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: Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly cooler 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
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler 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 a balance of warm & cool undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same natural finish· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Full rather than buildable coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
69
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: very deep with neutral rich-brown undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same natural finish· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
60
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Visibly different colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Both claim a skin-like finish· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly cooler undertone· Matte rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
65
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 · Slightly cooler undertone · 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· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
71
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler 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 a balance of warm & cool undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same natural finish· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
58
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Visibly different colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
70
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
68
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 · 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
Matches: Same natural finish· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Slightly warmer undertone
Score details
Shade match
55
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Slightly warmer undertone · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
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
66
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Slight colour difference · 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
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same natural finish· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
52
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
50
Visibly different colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
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
Slight colour difference · 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: deeper skin with very warm, rosy undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Matte rather than natural finish
Score details
Shade match
60
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
50
Visibly different colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly lighter · Matte rather than natural finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: D3 - Deep with neutral undertones
The closest shade to Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer 29N (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
Tarte Shape Tape Full Coverage Matte Concealer in 62W espresso warm, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 29N. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade29NClosest shade match62W espresso warmHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour60%97#4c2520#4c2723Looks identicalColour difference 1.0 (0 is identical)
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 · 3 of 5 compared72
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%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, combination, oilySkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 77/100Shade match 89/100Medium 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.
Laura Mercier Real Flawless Weightless Perfecting Serum Concealer in 6N1, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 29N. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade29NClosest overall alternative6N1How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall88
Colour60%80#4c2520#48271cClose colourColour difference 3.6 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared86
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%100BuildableMediumCloseMedium 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 compared86
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%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, oily, sensitiveSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 85/100Shade 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 $6 more
