Sweetener Foundation light 7 c dupes and alternatives R.E.M. Beauty
4.5 (732)·Light · Cool · rosy 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 R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation light 7 c (Light · Cool · rosy 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
about-face THE PERFORMER Skin-Focused Foundation in LM1COOL, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in light 7 c. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadelight 7 cClosest shade matchLM1COOLHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall93
Colour60%89#f0b59c#e8b59aVery close colourColour difference 2.4 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98LightLightSameDepth difference: 1.2
Retailer descriptionLightLight mediumSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish35%56MatteNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than matte
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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared40
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%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 overall70
Skin type100%70CombinationCombination, dry, normal, oilyBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 77/100Shade match 93/100Medium 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 Loose Matte Talc-Free Mineral Powder Foundation SPF 15 in Medium 10, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in light 7 c. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadelight 7 cClosest overall alternativeMedium 10How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%86#f0b59c#e2af9aVery close colourColour difference 2.8 (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 · 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 overall80
Skin type100%80CombinationCombination, oilyBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 87/100Shade 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.
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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $19 more
