Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth, undertone and colour family only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar blush overall: shade match 55%, finish, pigmentation and format 25%, wear and performance 15%, comfort and skin suitability 5%.
Overall alternativesShade matchesRanked by the overall match: the most similar blush on shade, finish, wear and comfort 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 blush on shade, finish, wear and comfort and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Matches: Same cool undertone· Same pigmentation: buildable· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Lighter· Liquid rather than balm (format)· Does not claim hydration
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish, pigmentation & format
77
Wear & performance
100
Comfort & skin suitability
72
Close colour · Dewy · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Lighter · Liquid rather than balm (format) · Does not claim hydration · Normal, Dry, Oily rather than normal, dry, combination (skin types)
Matches: Same cool undertone· Same pigmentation: buildable· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Mauve rather than pink· Liquid rather than balm (format)· Does not claim hydration
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish, pigmentation & format
77
Wear & performance
100
Comfort & skin suitability
72
Close colour · Dewy · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Mauve rather than pink · Liquid rather than balm (format) · Does not claim hydration · Normal, Dry, Oily rather than normal, dry, combination (skin types)
Matches: Very close colour· Same cool undertone· Both claim comfort
Differences: Matte rather than satin (finish)· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)· Liquid rather than balm (format)
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish, pigmentation & format
62
Wear & performance
70
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Very close colour · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 1% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than satin (finish) · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Liquid rather than balm (format) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same cool undertone· Same pigmentation: buildable· Both claim comfort
Differences: Mauve rather than pink· Shimmer rather than satin (finish)· 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish, pigmentation & format
75
Wear & performance
70
Comfort & skin suitability
84
Close colour · Shimmer · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Mauve rather than pink · Shimmer rather than satin (finish) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Normal, Dry, Oily rather than normal, dry, combination (skin types)
Retailer shade note: A powdery pink mauve with golden shimmer
Matches: Same cool undertone· Same pigmentation: buildable· Both claim comfort
Differences: Rose rather than pink· 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)· Normal, Dry, Oily rather than normal, dry, combination (skin types)
Score details
Shade match
77
Finish, pigmentation & format
85
Wear & performance
70
Comfort & skin suitability
84
Close colour · Dewy · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Rose rather than pink · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Normal, Dry, Oily rather than normal, dry, combination (skin types)
Matches: Very close colour· Claims waterproof· Both claim comfort
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Sheer rather than buildable (pigmentation)· Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
87
Finish, pigmentation & format
82
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Very close colour · Natural · Sheer
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Sheer rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same pigmentation: buildable· Same longevity: long-wearing· Both claim hydration
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Mauve rather than pink· Matte rather than satin (finish)
Score details
Shade match
73
Finish, pigmentation & format
80
Wear & performance
100
Comfort & skin suitability
60
Close colour · Matte · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Mauve rather than pink · Matte rather than satin (finish) · Does not claim comfort · Normal, Combination, Oily rather than normal, dry, combination (skin types)
Matches: Very close colour· Same cool undertone· Same pigmentation: buildable
Differences: Rose rather than pink· Matte rather than satin (finish)· Powder rather than balm (format)
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish, pigmentation & format
66
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
82
Very close colour · Matte · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Rose rather than pink · Matte rather than satin (finish) · Powder rather than balm (format) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim hydration
Charlotte Tilbury Airbrush Powder Blush Blur in Pillow Talk Medium, against rhode Pocket Blush Buildable Hydrating Cream Blush in Piggy - baby pink. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
Overall match 82/100Shade 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.
MERIT Flush Balm Cream Blush in Stockholm, against rhode Pocket Blush Buildable Hydrating Cream Blush in Piggy - baby pink. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadePiggy - baby pinkClosest overall alternativeStockholmHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour55%88#de8796#e590a0Very close colourColour difference 2.5 (0 is identical)
Depth15%90MediumLightCloseDepth difference 4.4 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone15%100CoolCoolSameSame product undertone
Colour family15%100PinkPinkSameSame colour family
Finish, pigmentation & format25% of overall82
Finish50%89SatinNaturalCloseNatural finish rather than satin
Pigmentation25%65BuildableSheerSome differenceSheer rather than buildable
Format25%85BalmStickCloseStick rather than balm
Wear & performance15% of overall · 1 of 3 compared100
Longevity50%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Transfer resistance30%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot listed for eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Overall match 91/100Shade 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, undertone and colour family; the overall match on shade match, finish, pigmentation and format, wear and performance and comfort and suitability. A pair with no swatch colour on one side or Low data confidence is listed without a score. 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.