Silksphere Foundation 3.5N/W Buff dupes and alternatives Temptu
Medium light · Neutral 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.
Matches: Claims a skin-like finish· Both claim long-wearing· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly deeper· Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than dewy finish
Score details
Shade match
76
Finish & visual result
42
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
50
Colour not compared · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 4% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than dewy finish · Buildable rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed
The closest shade to Temptu Silksphere Foundation 3.5N/W Buff (Medium light · Neutral 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
L'Oréal Paris Lumi Le Glow Skin Tint in N210, against Temptu Silksphere Foundation in 3.5N/W Buff. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade3.5N/W BuffClosest shade matchN210How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall98
Colour60%97#d5a37e#d4a582Looks identicalColour difference 0.9 (0 is identical)
Finish35%56DewyRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than dewy
Coverage30%40FullLightDifferentLight 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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 2 of 5 compared60
Longevity30%40Long-wearingNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims long wear; the match does not list it
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
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 overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedCombination, dry, normal, oily, sensitiveSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 79/100Shade 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.
Jane Iredale Skintuition SPF 30 Radiance-Boosting Liquid Foundation in 28 Light, against Temptu Silksphere Foundation in 3.5N/W Buff. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade3.5N/W BuffClosest overall alternative28 LightHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall96
Colour60%94#d5a37e#d69f76Very close colourColour difference 1.6 (0 is identical)
Finish35%56DewyRadiantSome differenceRadiant finish rather than dewy
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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared85
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Transfer resistance20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists transfer resistance
Settling20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists not settling into pores or fine lines
Colour stability15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims colour stability (no oxidation); your product does not list it
Comfort15%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedCombination, dry, normal, oily, sensitiveSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 85/100Shade match 96/100Medium 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.
CVS
Ulta Beauty$18.01 less (53%)
Sephora
