Liquid Touch Brightening Concealer 520W dupes and alternatives Rare Beauty
4.2 (2,558)·Deep · Warm · golden 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: Very close colour· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
75
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 24% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: deep with neutral to golden undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Claims transfer resistance· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
68
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
50
Very close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 25% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Same warm undertone· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly deeper· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
72
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
75
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 24% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Slightly deeper · Natural rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Not marketed for oily skin
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · 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
Matches: Both claim long-wearing· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
69
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
92
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: 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· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly lighter· Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish
Score details
Shade match
67
Finish & visual result
61
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
75
Slight colour difference · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 24% 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 · Not marketed for oily skin
Matches: Same warm undertone· Claims a blurring effect· Both claim not settling into lines
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No skin-like finish claimed
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
75
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No skin-like finish claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for dry skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: deep skin with warm, peach undertones
Matches: Same radiant finish· Same medium coverage· Both claim a skin-like finish
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Slightly lighter· Olive rather than warm undertone
Score details
Shade match
64
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
75
Slight colour difference · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · 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: deep with neutral olive undertones
The closest shade to Rare Beauty Liquid Touch Brightening Concealer 520W (Deep · Warm · golden 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 shade match works
Maybelline Instant Age Rewind Eraser Dark Circle Treatment Concealer in 149, against Rare Beauty Liquid Touch Brightening Concealer in 520W. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade520WClosest shade match149How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall89
Colour60%83#825636#7e5b3aClose colourColour difference 3.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98DeepDeepSameDepth difference: 1.3
Retailer descriptionDeepDeepBoth described as deepThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared78
Finish35%100RadiantRadiantSameSame radiant finish
Coverage30%—not comparableMediumNot listedNot comparedCoverage not listed for one product
Skin-like finish20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a skin-like finish; the match does not list it
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared59
Longevity30%40Long-wearingNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match 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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; the match does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall0
Skin type100%0Oily, dry, combination, normalSensitiveMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 77/100Shade match 89/100Medium 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.
L'Oréal Paris True Match Radiant Serum Concealer in C10, against Rare Beauty Liquid Touch Brightening Concealer in 520W. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade520WClosest overall alternativeC10How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall82
Colour60%73#825636#945b36Close colourColour difference 4.5 (0 is identical)
Depth15%88DeepDeepSameDepth difference: 5.2
Retailer descriptionDeepNot statedNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared100
Finish35%100RadiantRadiantSameSame radiant finish
Coverage30%—not comparableMediumNot listedNot comparedCoverage not listed for one product
Skin-like finish20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a skin-like finish
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared100
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim 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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall0
Skin type100%0Oily, dry, combination, normalSensitiveMarketed for different skin types
Overall match 85/100Shade match 82/100Medium 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
Sephora$2 less (8%)
