Best Skin Ever Liquid Foundation 16O dupes and alternatives Sephora Collection
3.8 (1,315)·Fair · Olive 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.
The closest shade to Sephora Collection Best Skin Ever Liquid Foundation 16O (Fair · Olive 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
bareMinerals ORIGINAL Loose Matte Talc-Free Mineral Powder Foundation SPF 15 in Light Beige 09, against Sephora Collection Best Skin Ever Liquid Foundation in 16O. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade16OClosest shade matchLight Beige 09How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall91
Colour60%99#efc39e#f1c5a0Looks identicalColour difference 0.5 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98FairFairSameDepth difference: 1.0
Retailer descriptionLightLightBoth described as lightThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 2 of 4 compared76
Finish35%56NaturalMatteSome differenceMatte finish rather than natural
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 4 of 5 compared51
Longevity30%40Long-wearingNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
Transfer resistance20%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match does not list it
Settling20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims not settling into pores or fine lines; your product 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 overall30
Skin type100%30Normal, dry, combinationCombination, oilyBoth marketed for combination skin
Overall match 78/100Shade 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.
NARS Light Reflecting Foundation in Salzburg, against Sephora Collection Best Skin Ever Liquid Foundation in 16O. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade16OClosest overall alternativeSalzburgHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall87
Colour60%94#efc39e#f6c9a2Very close colourColour difference 1.6 (0 is identical)
Depth15%94FairFairSameDepth difference: 3.2
Retailer descriptionLightLightBoth described as lightThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared89
Finish35%100NaturalNaturalSameSame natural finish
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists 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%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims transfer resistance; the match does not list it
Settling20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists 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 overall100
Skin type100%100Normal, dry, combinationNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for normal/dry/combination skin
Overall match 87/100Shade match 87/100High 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 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
SephoraCosts $21 more
Target
