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: Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Radiant rather than natural finish· Medium-full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Radiant · Medium-full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium-full rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fairest with pink/neutral undertones
The closest shade to Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer 2C (Very fair · 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
NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Affogato, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 2C. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade2CClosest shade matchAffogatoHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%87#fad1bb#f9d7c0Very close colourColour difference 2.7 (0 is identical)
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a blurring or smoothing effect; your product does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared65
Longevity30%70Long-wearing16-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 16-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 publishedNormal, dry, combinationSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 79/100Shade match 92/100Medium 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.
L'Oréal Paris True Match Radiant Serum Concealer in W3, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 2C. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade2CClosest overall alternativeW3How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall83
Colour60%74#fad1bb#ffdec4Close colourColour difference 4.5 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared72
Finish35%56NaturalRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than natural
Coverage30%—not comparableBuildableNot listedNot comparedCoverage not listed for one product
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 publishedSensitiveSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 81/100Shade 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.
Sephora
Ulta BeautyCosts $6 more
