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: Near-identical swatch colour· Both claim long-wearing· Claims transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than dewy finish· Medium rather than full coverage
Score details
Shade match
89
Finish & visual result
43
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
50
Looks identical · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 18% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than dewy finish · Medium rather than full coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel
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
Clinique Acne Solutions Liquid Makeup Foundation in CN 74 Beige, against Temptu Silksphere Foundation in 3.5N/W Buff. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade3.5N/W BuffClosest shade matchCN 74 BeigeHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall92
Colour60%94#d5a37e#dba885Very close colourColour difference 1.7 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared49
Finish35%0DewyMatteDifferentMatte finish rather than dewy
Coverage30%80FullMediumCloseMedium 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%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, oilySkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 74/100Shade 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.
Hourglass Ambient Soft Glow Foundation in 4, against Temptu Silksphere Foundation in 3.5N/W Buff. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade3.5N/W BuffClosest overall alternative4How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall88
Colour60%96#d5a37e#daa781Looks identicalColour difference 1.2 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared54
Finish35%12DewyNaturalDifferentNatural finish rather than dewy
Coverage30%80FullMediumCloseMedium 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%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim a blurring or smoothing effect
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared82
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product 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 overall50
Skin type100%50Not publishedNormal, dry, combination, oily, sensitiveSkin-type suitability not published for one product
Overall match 77/100Shade match 88/100Medium 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.
Ulta Beauty
SephoraCosts $5.50 more
