Liquid Touch Brightening Concealer 310W dupes and alternatives Rare Beauty
4.2 (2,558)·Medium light · Warm · peach undertone
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth and undertone only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar concealer 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 concealer 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 concealer on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Matches: Same warm undertone· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
88
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
92
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close colour· Same radiant finish· Same medium coverage
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· No long-wear claim· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
75
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: medium tan with neutral olive undertones
Matches: Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Luminous rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
77
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Luminous · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Luminous rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed
Retailer shade note: for medium-tan neutral skin with peach undertones
Matches: Same radiant finish· Both claim a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Medium-full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Radiant · Medium-full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Medium-full rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for oily/combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral/pink undertones
Matches: Same radiant finish· Same medium coverage· Both claim a skin-like finish
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
75
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: medium with neutral undertones
Matches: Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Luminous rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish & visual result
77
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
50
Close colour · Luminous · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Luminous rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed
Retailer shade note: for medium neutral skin with peach undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same medium coverage· Claims a blurring effect
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
75
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly cooler undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Matches: Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
92
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly deeper· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
92
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Same radiant finish· Same medium coverage· Both claim a skin-like finish
Differences: Slightly lighter· Olive rather than warm undertone· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
75
Close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Olive rather than warm undertone · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: medium tan with olive undertones
Matches: Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
92
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
91
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
25
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily/dry/combination skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: medium skin with warm yellow undertones
Matches: Same warm undertone· Claims a blurring effect· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly lighter· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
58
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
75
Close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
Matches: Same medium coverage· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly lighter· Slightly cooler undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
75
Close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly lighter · Slightly cooler undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for combination skin
The closest shade to Rare Beauty Liquid Touch Brightening Concealer 310W (Medium light · Warm · peach undertone) in each foundation range, compared on measured colour, depth and undertone. Price never changes the order.
Foundation shade colours are sampled from retailer swatch images, so check the shade on the retailer page before buying.
Why the closest match works
Armani Beauty Luminous Silk Hydrating Face and Under-Eye Concealer in 7, against Rare Beauty Liquid Touch Brightening Concealer in 310W. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade310WClosest match7How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%87#d1a784#d5a382Very close colourColour difference 2.8 (0 is identical)
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a blurring or smoothing effect; your product does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared82
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Oily, dry, combination, normalNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 88/100Shade 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.
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.
SephoraCosts $18 more
