Soft Matte Complete Concealer Biscuit dupes and alternatives NARS
4.5 (4,186)·Light medium · 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 shade match: colour, depth and undertone only. Each row leads with its shade match; the overall match is beneath it.
Ranked by the shade match: colour, depth and undertone only. Each row leads with its shade match; the overall match is beneath it.
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Same medium coverage
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish· No blurring effect claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
93
Finish & visual result
48
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: medium tan with warm peach undertones
The closest shade to NARS Soft Matte Complete Concealer Biscuit (Light medium · 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
NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer in Biscuit, against NARS Soft Matte Complete Concealer in Biscuit. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeBiscuitClosest shade matchBiscuitHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall95
Colour60%92#dda881#d7a278Very close colourColour difference 1.9 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared62
Finish35%12MatteRadiantDifferentRadiant finish rather than matte
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 · 3 of 5 compared74
Longevity30%8012-hour wear16-hour wearClose16-hour wear claimed against 12-hour wear
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product 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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, combination, oilyNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for normal/combination skin
Overall match 82/100Shade match 95/100Medium 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.
Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear All Over Full Coverage Concealer in 410 Bisque W, against NARS Soft Matte Complete Concealer in Biscuit. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeBiscuitClosest overall alternative410 Bisque WHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall88
Colour60%81#dda881#d4a577Close colourColour difference 3.5 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared100
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte 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 · 3 of 5 compared56
Longevity30%3512-hour wear24-hour wearDifferent24-hour wear claimed against 12-hour 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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall28
Skin type100%28Normal, combination, oilyDry, combination, sensitiveBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 83/100Shade 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.
31 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$4 less (11%)
