Sweetener Foundation medium 3 g dupes and alternatives R.E.M. Beauty
4.5 (732)·Medium light · Warm · golden 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· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
95
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
74
Skin suitability
0
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 · Not marketed for combination skin · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Claims 24-hour wear
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
95
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: medium with warm yellow undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims 12-hour wear
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: Medium with neutral undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same buildable coverage· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: medium skin with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same matte finish· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Full rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 22% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Full rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: for medium rich neutral skin with a peach hue
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Light rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
95
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% 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 warm undertone· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish· Light 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 · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant 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
The closest shade to R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation medium 3 g (Medium light · Warm · golden 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
MAC Cosmetics Studio Fix Fluid SPF 15 Foundation in NC27, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in medium 3 g. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shademedium 3 gClosest shade matchNC27How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall99
Colour60%98#dea07a#dca07cLooks identicalColour difference 0.6 (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 overall52
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%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 overall0
Skin type100%0CombinationNormal, oilyMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 83/100Shade 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 Nude 16, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in medium 3 g. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shademedium 3 gClosest overall alternativeGolden Nude 16How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall88
Colour60%96#dea07a#dea47eLooks identicalColour difference 1.3 (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 88/100Shade match 88/100Medium 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.
32 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 $4 more
CVS
