Liqua-Play Eye Shadow Mauvelous Matte dupes and alternatives Stila
4.8 (290)·Mauve · Cool · Medium
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth, undertone and colour family only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar eyeshadow overall: shade match 55%, finish, pigmentation and format 30%, wear and performance 10%, comfort and skin suitability 5%.
Overall alternativesShade matchesRanked by the overall match: the most similar eyeshadow 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 eyeshadow 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 finish: matte· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)· Palette rather than liquid (format)· Does not claim crease resistance
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish, pigmentation & format
81
Wear & performance
78
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Palette rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same finish: matte· Same longevity: long-wearing· Both claim crease resistance
Differences: Lighter· Pink rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
70
Finish, pigmentation & format
81
Wear & performance
100
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Close colour · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Lighter · Pink rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same finish: matte· Same format: liquid· Both claim crease resistance
Differences: Pink rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)· 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
67
Finish, pigmentation & format
93
Wear & performance
73
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Pink rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same cool undertone· Same finish: matte· Claims waterproof
Differences: Plum rather than mauve· Stick rather than liquid (format)· 11-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
75
Finish, pigmentation & format
90
Wear & performance
55
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Matte
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Plum rather than mauve · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 11-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same cool undertone· Same finish: matte· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Pink rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
67
Finish, pigmentation & format
87
Wear & performance
78
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Pink rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Cream rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same finish: matte· Same format: liquid· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Warm rather than cool undertone· Brown rather than mauve
Score details
Shade match
55
Finish, pigmentation & format
93
Wear & performance
100
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Warm rather than cool undertone · Brown rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same cool undertone· Same finish: matte· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Deeper· Plum rather than mauve
Score details
Shade match
61
Finish, pigmentation & format
81
Wear & performance
100
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Deeper · Plum rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same finish: matte· Same format: liquid· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Warm rather than cool undertone· Copper rather than mauve
Score details
Shade match
53
Finish, pigmentation & format
93
Wear & performance
100
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Warm rather than cool undertone · Copper rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same finish: matte· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Brown rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)· Palette rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
67
Finish, pigmentation & format
81
Wear & performance
78
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 12% ingredient overlap
Differences: Brown rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Palette rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same finish: matte· Same longevity: long-wearing· Both claim crease resistance
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Brown rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
63
Finish, pigmentation & format
85
Wear & performance
88
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Brown rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Very close colour· Same finish: matte· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Copper rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)· Palette rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
67
Finish, pigmentation & format
81
Wear & performance
78
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Very close colour · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Copper rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Palette rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same finish: matte· Same pigmentation: buildable· Same format: liquid
Differences: Terracotta rather than mauve· 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)· Does not claim crease resistance
Score details
Shade match
56
Finish, pigmentation & format
100
Wear & performance
55
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Slight colour difference · Matte · Buildable
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Terracotta rather than mauve · 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same cool undertone· Same finish: matte· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Plum rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
64
Finish, pigmentation & format
87
Wear & performance
70
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Plum rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Cream rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Both claim crease resistance· Claims waterproof· Both claim hydration
Differences: Warm rather than cool undertone· Brown rather than mauve· Satin rather than matte (finish)
Score details
Shade match
69
Finish, pigmentation & format
69
Wear & performance
73
Comfort & skin suitability
60
Close colour · Satin
Ingredients (not scored): 0% ingredient overlap
Differences: Warm rather than cool undertone · Brown rather than mauve · Satin rather than matte (finish) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim comfort
Matches: Same finish: matte· Same format: liquid· Both claim crease resistance
Differences: Nude rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)· 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Score details
Shade match
52
Finish, pigmentation & format
93
Wear & performance
73
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Nude rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim hydration
Differences: Brown rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)· Palette rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
67
Finish, pigmentation & format
81
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 10% ingredient overlap
Differences: Brown rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Palette rather than liquid (format) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same finish: matte· Both claim crease resistance· Both claim comfort
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour· Lighter· Warm rather than cool undertone
Score details
Shade match
51
Finish, pigmentation & format
85
Wear & performance
81
Comfort & skin suitability
100
Slight colour difference · Matte
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Noticeably different swatch colour · Lighter · Warm rather than cool undertone · Nude rather than mauve · Powder rather than liquid (format) · 16-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity)
Matches: Same finish: matte· Both claim crease resistance
Differences: Red rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)· Stick rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
56
Finish, pigmentation & format
85
Wear & performance
81
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Slight colour difference · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Red rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Stick rather than liquid (format) · 24-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Differences: Warm rather than cool undertone· Nude rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)
Score details
Shade match
65
Finish, pigmentation & format
81
Wear & performance
40
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Warm rather than cool undertone · Nude rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · Not listed rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same finish: matte· Same longevity: long-wearing
Differences: Red rather than mauve· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)· Palette rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
58
Finish, pigmentation & format
81
Wear & performance
78
Comfort & skin suitability
40
Close colour · Matte · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 8% ingredient overlap
Differences: Red rather than mauve · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Palette rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim crease resistance · Does not claim comfort · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Same cool undertone· Same longevity: long-wearing· Both claim crease resistance
Differences: Shimmer rather than matte (finish)· Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation)· Cream rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish, pigmentation & format
35
Wear & performance
88
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Slight colour difference · Shimmer · Opaque
Ingredients (not scored): 7% ingredient overlap
Differences: Shimmer rather than matte (finish) · Opaque rather than buildable (pigmentation) · Cream rather than liquid (format) · Does not claim hydration
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim crease resistance· Both claim comfort
Differences: Pink rather than mauve· Glitter rather than matte (finish)· Powder rather than liquid (format)
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish, pigmentation & format
4
Wear & performance
81
Comfort & skin suitability
80
Very close colour · Glitter
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Pink rather than mauve · Glitter rather than matte (finish) · Powder rather than liquid (format) · 12-hour wear rather than long-wearing (longevity) · Does not claim hydration
e.l.f. Cosmetics Bite Size Eyeshadow Palette in Take Your Pink, against Stila Liqua-Play Eye Shadow in Mauvelous Matte. Matched on pan 4. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeMauvelous MatteClosest shade matchTake Your PinkHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall87
Colour60%81#a5665c#ab7066Close colourColour difference 3.5 (0 is identical)
Depth15%89MediumMediumSameDepth difference 4.8 on the 0–100 scale
Undertone—not comparableCoolNot listedUndertone unknown on one side
Colour family25%100MauveMauveSameSame colour family
Finish, pigmentation & format30% of overall19
Finish65%5MatteMetallicDifferentMetallic finish rather than matte
Pigmentation20%65BuildableOpaqueSome differenceOpaque rather than buildable
Format15%20LiquidPowderDifferentPowder rather than liquid
Wear & performance10% of overall · 2 of 3 compared78
Longevity50%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Crease resistance30%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims crease resistance; the match does not list it
Overall match 63/100Shade match 87/100Medium 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.
CoverGirl Clean Fresh Clean Color Eyeshadow in Candlelit Burgundy, against Stila Liqua-Play Eye Shadow in Mauvelous Matte. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeMauvelous MatteClosest overall alternativeCandlelit BurgundyHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall86
Colour60%94#a5665c#a1695fVery close colourColour difference 1.6 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99MediumMediumSameDepth difference 0.4 on the 0–100 scale
Overall match 82/100Shade match 86/100Medium 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.
32 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.
Ulta BeautyCosts $13 more
Sephora
