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· Same cool undertone· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than natural finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: L1.25 - very light with cool undertones
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
Matches: Same natural finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Full rather than buildable coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close colour· Same cool undertone· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Slightly deeper· Matte rather than natural finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
91
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Matte rather than natural finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: Fair-Medium with cool 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
Hourglass Vanish Airbrush Full Coverage Longwear Concealer in Stone 1.3, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 2C. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade2CClosest shade matchStone 1.3How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%94#fad1bb#f7d3bdVery close colourColour difference 1.6 (0 is identical)
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 · 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 publishedNormal, dry, combinationSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 90/100Shade match 96/100High 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.
Too Faced Born This Way Super Coverage Multi-Use Concealer in Cream Puff, against Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 2C. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade2CClosest overall alternativeCream PuffHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%93#fad1bb#f7d4bfVery close colourColour difference 1.8 (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 $6 more
