Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation N4 dupes and alternatives Natasha Denona
4.5 (2,944)·Light · 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.
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
58
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Radiant · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: light skin with warm peach undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same radiant finish· No drying alcohol listed
Differences: Slightly lighter· Light rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
84
Close colour · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 0% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Light rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same radiant finish· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Light rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
74
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
67
Close colour · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Light rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same radiant finish· No drying alcohol listed
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Light rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
74
Wear & performance
58
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Light rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Very close colour· Same radiant finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· No blurring effect claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: light with cool, rosy-peach undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same radiant finish· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Light rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
74
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
67
Close colour · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Light rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same radiant finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· No blurring effect claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: light medium with cool, pink-peach undertones
The closest shade to Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation N4 (Light · 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
MAC Cosmetics Studio Radiance Skin Tint Stick in LIGHT 3, against Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation in N4. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeN4Closest shade matchLIGHT 3How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%85#ddb9a7#e3bba1Very close colourColour difference 3.0 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98LightLightSameDepth difference: 1.3
Retailer descriptionLightLightBoth described as lightThe retailers describe the same depth
Coverage30%60MediumLightSome differenceLight coverage rather than medium
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 compared70
Longevity30%7018-hour wear24-hour wearSome difference24-hour wear claimed against 18-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 overall67
Skin type100%67Normal, dry, sensitiveNormal, dryBoth marketed for normal/dry skin
Overall match 81/100Shade match 91/100High 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.
Make Up For Ever HD Skin Hydra Glow Hydrating Foundation in 1R02 - Cool Alabaster, against Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation in N4. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeN4Closest overall alternative1R02 - Cool AlabasterHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall81
Colour60%86#ddb9a7#e9c4b0Very close colourColour difference 2.9 (0 is identical)
Depth15%86LightFairCloseDepth difference: 5.7
Retailer descriptionLightFairSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared100
Finish35%100RadiantRadiantSameSame radiant 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 compared58
Longevity30%7018-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 18-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, sensitiveNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for normal/dry skin
Overall match 81/100Shade match 81/100High 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.
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.
SephoraCosts $8 more
Walmart
