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.
Matches: Very close colour· Similar undertone (cool vs neutral)· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
70
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: fairest with cool pinkish-blue undertones
Matches: Similar undertone (cool vs neutral)· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims 24-hour wear
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: very fair with cool undertones
Matches: Similar undertone (cool vs neutral)· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims 24-hour wear
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: most fair with cool undertones
Matches: Same neutral undertone· Claims long-wearing· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: very fair with neutral undertones
The closest shade to R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation fair 1 n (Very fair · Neutral · neutral pink 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
Rare Beauty True to Myself Natural Matte Longwear Foundation in 1 Fair Neutral, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in fair 1 n. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadefair 1 nClosest shade match1 Fair NeutralHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall94
Colour60%97#ffeee8#fdeae4Looks identicalColour difference 1.1 (0 is identical)
Coverage30%100BuildableMediumCloseMedium coverage rather than buildable (buildable: one step of tolerance)
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 overall40
Longevity30%40Not listed8-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%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 overall70
Skin type100%70CombinationCombination, normal, oily, sensitiveBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 83/100Shade match 94/100Medium 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.
Tarte Amazonian Clay 16-Hour Full Coverage Foundation in 18N Fair-Light Neutral, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in fair 1 n. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadefair 1 nClosest overall alternative18N Fair-Light NeutralHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%91#ffeee8#f9eae1Very close colourColour difference 2.2 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared93
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte finish
Coverage30%80BuildableFullCloseFull 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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared59
Longevity30%40Not listed16-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims long wear; your product 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 overall73
Skin type100%73CombinationNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 86/100Shade match 91/100Medium 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.
SephoraCosts $5 more
