Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation P4 dupes and alternatives Natasha Denona
4.5 (2,944)·Light · Warm · peach 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.
The closest shade to Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation P4 (Light · Warm · peach 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
Clinique Even Better Clinical Vitamin Makeup Broad Spectrum SPF 45 Foundation in Light Medium Warm 1, against Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation in P4. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeP4Closest shade matchLight Medium Warm 1How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall93
Colour60%90#f6b486#ebad7fVery close colourColour difference 2.3 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared55
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%60MediumLightSome differenceLight coverage rather than medium
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared66
Longevity30%7018-hour wear12-hour wearSome difference12-hour wear claimed against 18-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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims colour stability (no oxidation); your product does not list it
Comfort15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall28
Skin type100%28Normal, dry, sensitiveCombination, dry, oilyBoth marketed for dry skin
Overall match 76/100Shade match 93/100High 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.
Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Treatment Foundation in 150, against Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation in P4. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeP4Closest overall alternative150How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%98#f6b486#f9b483Looks identicalColour difference 0.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.4
Retailer descriptionLight mediumLight mediumBoth described as light mediumThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared81
Finish35%56RadiantNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than radiant
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 compared59
Longevity30%4018-hour wearNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
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 overall33
Skin type100%33Normal, dry, sensitiveSensitiveBoth marketed for sensitive skin
Overall match 80/100Shade match 90/100Medium 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
Walmart$39.02 less (75%)
View at Sephora
