Sweetener Foundation tan 4 g dupes and alternatives R.E.M. Beauty
4.5 (732)·Medium tan · 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· Claims long-wearing
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): 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
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Same matte finish· Claims 12-hour wear
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
89
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
0
Looks identical · Matte · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim not settling into lines· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
74
Skin suitability
0
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for combination skin · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Near-identical swatch 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
97
Finish & visual result
43
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
73
Looks identical · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish · Light rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Retailer shade note: for tan skin with warm undertones
The closest shade to R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation tan 4 g (Medium tan · 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
NARS Natural Radiant Longwear Foundation in Belem, against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in tan 4 g. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadetan 4 gClosest shade matchBelemHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%96#c88256#c88050Looks identicalColour difference 1.1 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared62
Finish35%56MatteNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than matte
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 overall · 4 of 5 compared40
Longevity30%40Not listed16-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%73CombinationNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 79/100Shade 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.
Lancôme Dual Finish Multi-Tasking Lightweight Pressed Powder Foundation in 440 Bisque (C), against R.E.M. Beauty Sweetener Foundation in tan 4 g. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadetan 4 gClosest overall alternative440 Bisque (C)How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%97#c88256#ca8353Looks identicalColour difference 1.1 (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 · 3 of 5 compared59
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%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%68CombinationNormal, dry, combination, oily, sensitiveBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 87/100Shade match 90/100Medium 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.
30 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(product price)Costs $20 more
Sephora
