Radiant Creamy Concealer Biscuit dupes and alternatives NARS
4.5 (22,453)·Medium light · Warm · golden undertone
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: Same warm undertone· Same radiant finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Slightly lighter· No blurring effect claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
100
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: medium tan with warm peach undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same radiant finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· No blurring effect claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
79
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
100
Looks identical · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: medium tan with neutral olive undertones
Matches: Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly deeper· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Retailer shade note: medium deep with warm golden undertones
Matches: Same radiant finish· Both claim not settling into lines· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Radiant · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim transfer resistance
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
93
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
66
Skin suitability
33
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry/combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: medium skin with warm yellow undertones
Matches: Similar undertone (neutral vs warm)· Same medium coverage· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Does not claim transfer resistance· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim not settling into lines· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
65
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
70
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance
The closest shade to NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer Biscuit (Medium light · Warm · golden 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
e.l.f. Cosmetics 16HR Camo Concealer in Medium Neutral, against NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Biscuit. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeBiscuitClosest shade matchMedium NeutralHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall97
Colour60%95#d7a278#d6a071Looks identicalColour difference 1.5 (0 is identical)
Transfer resistance20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match 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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, combinationOily, combination, normalBoth marketed for normal/combination skin
Overall match 78/100Shade match 97/100Medium 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.
Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 5.5, against NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Biscuit. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeBiscuitClosest overall alternative5.5How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%94#d7a278#d79d71Very close colourColour difference 1.6 (0 is identical)
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a skin-like finish; your product does not list it
Blurring15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared51
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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims not settling into pores or fine lines; the match does not list it
Colour stability15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists colour stability (no oxidation)
Comfort15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Normal, dry, combinationNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 85/100Shade 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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $3 more
