Natural Radiant Longwear Foundation Lima dupes and alternatives NARS
3.8 (6,285)·Very fair · Neutral 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.
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same natural finish· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Medium rather than full coverage· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Medium rather than full coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for combination skin · Contains drying alcohol
The closest shade to NARS Natural Radiant Longwear Foundation Lima (Very fair · Neutral 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
NARS Natural Matte Longwear Foundation in LIMA, against NARS Natural Radiant Longwear Foundation in Lima. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLimaClosest shade matchLIMAHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%94#f9d9b5#fdd9b6Very close colourColour difference 1.6 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared70
Finish35%56NaturalMatteSome differenceMatte finish rather than natural
Coverage30%100FullFullSameSame full coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists 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 compared82
Longevity30%6016-hour wear24-hour wearSome difference24-hour wear claimed against 16-hour wear
Transfer resistance20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim 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 86/100Shade 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.
NARS Light Reflecting Foundation in Lima, against NARS Natural Radiant Longwear Foundation in Lima. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeLimaClosest overall alternativeLimaHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%93#f9d9b5#fbd7b5Very close colourColour difference 1.8 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared81
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%80FullMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than full (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists 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 compared68
Longevity30%7016-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 16-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match does not list it
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 88/100Shade 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.
Sephora$31 less (56%)
