Sweetener Foundation medium 6 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 matte finish· Claims 36-hour wear
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: medium with warm olive undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same matte finish· Claims 36-hour wear
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: medium with warm golden-olive undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same matte finish· Claims 36-hour wear
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Retailer shade note: medium with warm golden-olive undertones
$13.99Ulta Beauty(product price)$21.01 less (60%)4.3 (33,167)
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm 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
96
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
68
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
The closest shade to R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation medium 6 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
Maybelline Fit Me Matte + Poreless Foundation in Warm Honey 322, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in medium 6 g. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shademedium 6 gClosest shade matchWarm Honey 322How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%97#e09e71#e5a072Looks identicalColour difference 1.0 (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 · 3 of 5 compared40
Longevity30%40Not listed12-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%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 overall0
Skin type100%0CombinationNormal, oilyMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 82/100Shade 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 Golden Beige 13, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in medium 6 g. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shademedium 6 gClosest overall alternativeGolden Beige 13How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall86
Colour60%93#e09e71#e1a477Very close colourColour difference 1.8 (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 85/100Shade match 86/100Medium 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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $15 more
