Sweetener Foundation deep 1 n dupes and alternatives R.E.M. Beauty
4.5 (732)·Deep tan · 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.
$11.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$23.01 less (66%)4.4 (182,841)
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Same matte finish· Claims 12-hour wear
Differences: Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims 16-hour wear
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: deep with cool rose undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims long-wearing
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: D2.5 - deep with cool undertone
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same neutral undertone· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Light rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Light rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
57
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Both claim a blurring effect· Claims 24-hour wear· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same neutral undertone· Claims 24-hour wear
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Full rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
The closest shade to R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation deep 1 n (Deep tan · 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
Estée Lauder Double Wear Stay-in-Place Foundation in 6N2 Truffle, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in deep 1 n. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadedeep 1 nClosest shade match6N2 TruffleHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall99
Colour60%99#ab6a4f#a96a4fLooks identicalColour difference 0.5 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared89
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte finish
Coverage30%100BuildableMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than buildable (buildable: one step of tolerance)
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 compared40
Longevity30%40Not listed36-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims long wear; your product does not list it
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product 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 overall73
Skin type100%73CombinationDry, combination, oilyBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 86/100Shade match 99/100Medium 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.
bareMinerals ORIGINAL Talc-Free Pressed Powder Foundation Mineral SPF 15 in Golden Dark 25, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in deep 1 n. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadedeep 1 nClosest overall alternativeGolden Dark 25How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%88#ab6a4f#ab6344Very close colourColour difference 2.6 (0 is identical)
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 compared74
Longevity30%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists long 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 overall68
Skin type100%68CombinationCombination, dry, normal, oily, sensitiveBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 90/100Shade match 92/100Medium 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
Ulta Beauty(product price)Costs $3 more
Walmart
