Face Bond Self Setting Waterproof Foundation 4 dupes and alternatives Urban Decay
4.3 (4,659)·Very fair · Cool 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: Very close colour· Same cool undertone· Same matte finish
Differences: Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
95
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
61
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: for light skin with cool peach undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same matte finish· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Buildable rather than medium coverage· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
100
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Matte · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 23% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Very close colour· Same cool undertone· Same medium coverage
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim a lightweight feel
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 27% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than matte finish · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Not marketed for oily skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: fair with cool slight pink undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same medium coverage· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 14% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for oily skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: for very fair skin with rosy neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same matte finish· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly deeper· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
100
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim a lightweight feel · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly deeper· Neutral rather than cool undertone· Natural rather than matte finish
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
68
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 9% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Neutral rather than cool undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance
Matches: Very close colour· Same medium coverage· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Radiant rather than matte finish· Not marketed for combination/oily skin
Score details
Shade match
86
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
100
Skin suitability
33
Very close colour · Radiant · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Radiant rather than matte finish · Not marketed for combination/oily skin · Contains listed fragrance
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim long-wearing
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
80
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
60
Looks identical · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 13% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly warmer undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim transfer resistance · Not marketed for combination skin
Retailer shade note: Fair skin with peachy-golden undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Both claim transfer resistance
Differences: Slightly deeper· Neutral rather than cool undertone· Natural rather than matte finish
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
73
Wear & performance
72
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Natural · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 17% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Neutral rather than cool undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Light rather than medium coverage · No long-wear claim
Retailer shade note: light with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Same medium coverage· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone· Natural rather than matte finish· Does not claim transfer resistance
Score details
Shade match
85
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than cool undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Does not claim transfer resistance · Does not claim a lightweight feel
Retailer shade note: buff beige with neutral undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim transfer resistance· Both claim a lightweight feel
Differences: Slightly deeper· Neutral rather than cool undertone· Natural rather than matte finish
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
62
Wear & performance
86
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 11% ingredient overlap
Differences: Slightly deeper · Neutral rather than cool undertone · Natural rather than matte finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for oily skin
Retailer shade note: L4 - light with neutral undertones
The closest shade to Urban Decay Face Bond Self Setting Waterproof Foundation 4 (Very fair · Cool 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
Yves Saint Laurent Skin Affair Soft Glow Cushion Foundation in LC1.5, against Urban Decay Face Bond Self Setting Waterproof Foundation in 4. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade4Closest shade matchLC1.5How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall95
Colour60%94#fdd4ac#f5cda6Very close colourColour difference 1.7 (0 is identical)
Depth15%93Very fairFairCloseDepth difference: 3.7
Retailer descriptionFairLightSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared62
Finish35%12MatteRadiantDifferentRadiant finish rather than matte
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
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 compared100
Longevity30%100Long-wearingLong-wearingSameBoth products claim long wear
Transfer resistance20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim 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 overall33
Skin type100%33Normal, combination, oilyNormalBoth marketed for normal skin
Overall match 84/100Shade match 95/100High 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.
NARS Natural Matte Longwear Foundation in LIMA, against Urban Decay Face Bond Self Setting Waterproof Foundation in 4. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shade4Closest overall alternativeLIMAHow they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall86
Colour60%92#fdd4ac#fdd9b6Very close colourColour difference 1.9 (0 is identical)
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared93
Finish35%100MatteMatteSameSame matte finish
Coverage30%80MediumFullCloseFull coverage rather than medium (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 compared86
Longevity30%70Long-wearing24-hour wearSome differenceThe match claims 24-hour wear; your product says long-wearing without hours
Transfer resistance20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim 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 overall100
Skin type100%100Normal, combination, oilyNormal, combination, oilyBoth marketed for normal/combination/oily skin
Overall match 89/100Shade 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.
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.
Sephora
Ulta Beauty(product price)$20.01 less (50%)
CVS
