Sweetener Foundation rich 7 nw dupes and alternatives R.E.M. Beauty
4.5 (732)·Rich deep · Neutral · neutral 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 neutral undertone· Claims long-wearing
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
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: very deep with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Similar undertone (warm vs neutral)· Claims long-wearing
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
91
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Very close colour· Similar undertone (warm vs neutral)· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
70
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% 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: rich skin tones with warm undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral 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
92
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
70
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% 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: rich skin tones with neutral undertones
The closest shade to R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation rich 7 nw (Rich deep · Neutral · neutral 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
Fenty Beauty Pro Filt'r Fluid Flex Natural Matte Longwear Foundation in 556N, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in rich 7 nw. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shaderich 7 nwClosest shade match556NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall97
Colour60%95#4f2c20#532d1fLooks identicalColour difference 1.3 (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 overall52
Longevity30%40Not listedLong-wearingSome 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 overall73
Skin type100%73CombinationNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 81/100Shade match 97/100Medium 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.
Tarte Amazonian Clay Blurring Powder Foundation in 61H Espresso Honey, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in rich 7 nw. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shaderich 7 nwClosest overall alternative61H Espresso HoneyHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%93#4f2c20#552d21Very close colourColour difference 1.8 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared100
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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 2 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%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall73
Skin type100%73CombinationNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 85/100Shade match 92/100Medium 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 $7 more
