Sweetener Foundation rich 2 w dupes and alternatives R.E.M. Beauty
4.5 (732)·Very deep · Warm 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: Near-identical swatch colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims 24-hour wear
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% 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: 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: Very deep with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims 24-hour wear
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 16% 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: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
80
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% 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: Very close colour· Same matte finish· Claims long-wearing
Differences: Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Matches: Very close 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
85
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
74
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Not marketed for combination skin
Retailer shade note: Rich with neutral red undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same matte finish· Adds SPF 15
Differences: Full rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 0% ingredient overlap
Differences: Full rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish· Light rather than buildable coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
97
Finish & visual result
54
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish · Light rather than buildable coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Retailer shade note: Extra deep with golden undertones
The closest shade to R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation rich 2 w (Very deep · Warm 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
ILIA True Skin Serum Foundation in Bimini SF14, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in rich 2 w. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shaderich 2 wClosest shade matchBimini SF14How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%98#75442d#754530Looks identicalColour difference 0.8 (0 is identical)
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 overall0
Skin type100%0CombinationNormal, dry, sensitiveMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 76/100Shade 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 Talc-Free Pressed Powder Foundation Mineral SPF 15 in Golden Deep 28, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in rich 2 w. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shaderich 2 wClosest overall alternativeGolden Deep 28How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall86
Colour60%92#75442d#7c4732Very close colourColour difference 2.0 (0 is identical)
Depth15%96Very deepDeepCloseDepth difference: 2.6
Retailer descriptionRich deepVery deepSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
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 87/100Shade 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.
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.
Sephora
Ulta Beauty(product price)Costs $4.50 more
