Sweetener Foundation fair 5 w dupes and alternatives R.E.M. Beauty
4.5 (732)·Very fair · Warm · yellow 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.
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Adds SPF 50
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish· Full rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
96
Finish & visual result
43
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Radiant · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant 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 · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: ivory shade with warm undertones
The closest shade to R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation fair 5 w (Very fair · Warm · yellow 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
Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra Wear Natural Matte Foundation in 090N, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in fair 5 w. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadefair 5 wClosest shade match090NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%93#fee3cf#f7ddccVery close colourColour difference 1.7 (0 is identical)
Coverage30%80BuildableFullCloseFull 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 overall · 4 of 5 compared54
Longevity30%40Not listed24-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%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 overall0
Skin type100%0CombinationNormal, oily, sensitiveMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 81/100Shade match 96/100Medium 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.
Fenty Beauty Pro Filt'r Soft Matte Longwear Foundation in 120, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in fair 5 w. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadefair 5 wClosest overall alternative120How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%97#fee3cf#fde2ccLooks identicalColour difference 0.9 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared81
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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 2 of 5 compared64
Longevity30%40Not listedLong-wearingSome 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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall73
Skin type100%73CombinationNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 83/100Shade 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.
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 $20 more
