Light Reflecting Foundation Iguaçu dupes and alternatives NARS
4.3 (6,795)·Deep · Olive undertone
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth and undertone only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar foundation 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 foundation 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 foundation on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
The closest shade to NARS Light Reflecting Foundation Iguaçu (Deep · Olive undertone) in each concealer range, compared on measured colour, depth and undertone. Price never changes the order.
Concealer shade colours are sampled from retailer swatch images, so check the shade on the retailer page before buying.
Why the closest shade match works
Fenty Beauty Pro Filt'r Soft Matte Longwear Foundation in 445, against NARS Light Reflecting Foundation in Iguaçu. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeIguaçuClosest shade match445How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%90#824d29#8a4f25Very close colourColour difference 2.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%96DeepDeepSameDepth difference: 2.3
Retailer descriptionDeepDeepBoth described as deepThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared62
Finish35%56NaturalMatteSome differenceMatte finish rather than natural
Coverage30%80MediumFullCloseFull coverage rather than medium (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared68
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims not settling into pores or fine lines; your product does not list it
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 overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, combinationNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for normal/combination skin
Overall match 79/100Shade 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.
Benefit Cosmetics The POREfessional Blurring & Smoothing Foundation in 36W Remarkable, against NARS Light Reflecting Foundation in Iguaçu. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeIguaçuClosest overall alternative36W RemarkableHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%98#824d29#844e2aLooks identicalColour difference 0.5 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99DeepDeepSameDepth difference: 0.8
Retailer descriptionDeepDeepBoth described as deepThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared100
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 2 of 5 compared80
Longevity30%70Long-wearing24-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 24-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists 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 overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, combinationNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for normal/combination skin
Overall match 90/100Shade match 90/100High 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.
32 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$7 less (13%)
