Light Reflecting Foundation Macao dupes and alternatives NARS
4.3 (6,795)·Deep tan · 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.
$53Ulta Beauty(product price)$2 less (4%)4.5 (10,601)
Matches: Very close colour· Same natural finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry skin · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: medium - deep with neutral golden undertones
The closest shade to NARS Light Reflecting Foundation Macao (Deep tan · 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
m.ph by Mary Phillips Le Skin Weightless Serum Foundation in Tan 200 N, against NARS Light Reflecting Foundation in Macao. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeMacaoClosest shade matchTan 200 NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour60%95#b16f36#b1723eLooks identicalColour difference 1.4 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98Deep tanTanCloseDepth difference: 1.2
Retailer descriptionMedium tanTanSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a skin-like finish; your product does not list it
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 compared82
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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall100
Skin type100%100Normal, dry, combinationNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for normal/dry/combination skin
Overall match 86/100Shade 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.
Make Up For Ever Balancing & Perfecting Natural Finish Longwear Foundation in 362N Oak, against NARS Light Reflecting Foundation in Macao. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeMacaoClosest overall alternative362N OakHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall88
Colour60%93#b16f36#b56c2bVery close colourColour difference 1.8 (0 is identical)
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 compared100
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
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 overall100
Skin type100%100Normal, dry, combinationNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for normal/dry/combination skin
Overall match 94/100Shade 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.
Sephora$6 less (11%)
