Shape Tape Full Coverage Matte Concealer 57N rich dupes and alternatives Tarte
4.5 (38,566)·Deep · Cool 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.
The closest shade to Tarte Shape Tape Full Coverage Matte Concealer 57N rich (Deep · Cool 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
bareMinerals ORIGINAL Liquid Mineral Brightening Concealer in Deep 6C, against Tarte Shape Tape Full Coverage Matte Concealer in 57N rich. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade57N richClosest shade matchDeep 6CHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall90
Colour60%84#924c2a#874f31Close colourColour difference 3.2 (0 is identical)
Depth15%98DeepDeepSameDepth difference: 1.1
Retailer descriptionNot statedVery deepNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared38
Finish35%0MatteLuminousDifferentLuminous finish rather than matte
Coverage30%80FullBuildableCloseBuildable coverage rather than full (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared72
Longevity30%7016-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 16-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Normal, combination, oilyNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 72/100Shade match 90/100Medium 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.
Milk Makeup Future Fluid Longwear Hydrating Concealer in 24N, against Tarte Shape Tape Full Coverage Matte Concealer in 57N rich. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade57N richClosest overall alternative24NHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall82
Colour60%86#924c2a#874c2aVery close colourColour difference 2.8 (0 is identical)
Depth15%96DeepDeepSameDepth difference: 2.3
Retailer descriptionNot statedDeepNo depth word in one descriptionNot compared
Finish35%56MatteNaturalSome differenceNatural finish rather than matte
Coverage30%80FullBuildableCloseBuildable coverage rather than full (buildable: one step of tolerance)
Skin-like finish20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a skin-like finish; your product does not list it
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared72
Longevity30%7016-hour wearLong-wearingSome differenceYour product claims 16-hour wear; the match says long-wearing without hours
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%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Normal, combination, oilyNot publishedSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 73/100Shade 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.