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· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· Not marketed for combination/sensitive skin
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 22% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · Not marketed for combination/sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance · Contains drying alcohol
Matches: Very close colour· Similar undertone (cool 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
68
Skin suitability
20
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 · Not marketed for combination/dry/normal/oily skin
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
91
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
20
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 · Not marketed for combination/dry/normal/oily skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 24% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily/sensitive skin
Matches: Very close colour· Same neutral undertone· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish· Full rather than buildable coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
91
Finish & visual result
43
Wear & performance
80
Skin suitability
80
Very close colour · Radiant · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Radiant rather than matte finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: light with neutral undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Light rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
100
Looks identical · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Light rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
100
Looks identical · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close colour· Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
60
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim
Matches: Very close colour· Same buildable coverage
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Radiant rather than matte finish· Medium rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
50
Wear & performance
80
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Radiant rather than matte finish · Medium rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Very close colour· Same matte finish· Claims a skin-like finish
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Full rather than buildable coverage· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
82
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
40
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 22% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Full rather than buildable coverage · No long-wear claim · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for combination/oily/sensitive skin
Matches: Very close colour· Claims colour stability· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Full rather than buildable coverage
Score details
Shade match
79
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
70
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 15% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Full rather than buildable coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for combination/sensitive skin
The closest shade to Revolution Beauty Superfix Blur Longwear Foundation F6.7NC (Medium · Neutral · neutral pink 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
Clinique Redness Solutions Makeup SPF 15 in Calming Honey, against Revolution Beauty Superfix Blur Longwear Foundation in F6.7NC. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeF6.7NCClosest shade matchCalming HoneyHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall95
Colour60%93#cc9c6c#d4a070Very close colourColour difference 1.8 (0 is identical)
Overall match 79/100Shade match 95/100Medium 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.
LORAC PRO Soft Focus Longwear Foundation in 07, against Revolution Beauty Superfix Blur Longwear Foundation in F6.7NC. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeF6.7NCClosest overall alternative07How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%93#cc9c6c#d09f74Very close colourColour difference 1.9 (0 is identical)
Overall match 93/100Shade match 91/100Medium 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.