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.
Matches: Very close colour· Same cool undertone· Claims 24-hour wear
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: light - medium with cool pink undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same matte finish· Claims 36-hour wear
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: light-medium with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same cool 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
93
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 8% 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
Retailer shade note: fair skin with cool/pinky undertones
$25Ulta Beauty(product price)$10 less (29%)4.2 (812)
Matches: Very close colour· Same cool undertone· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
93
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: light medium with cool pink undertones
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
Estée Lauder Double Wear Stay-in-Place Foundation in 1C1 Cool Bone, 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 match1C1 Cool BoneHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%97#f0b59c#edb69dLooks identicalColour difference 1.0 (0 is identical)
Depth15%100LightLightSameDepth difference: 0.1
Retailer descriptionLightLightBoth described as lightThe retailers describe the same depth
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 98/100Medium 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.
SephoraCosts $17 more
