When I watch famous, American YouTubers suddenly pull out a Collection 2000 concealer (yes, Collection as in: stuff I wore in year 7 because I could only afford to spend £2 on my milky pink sparkly lipgloss and clear eyebrow gel that I’d use as mascara to avoid getting in trouble at school), I’m like wtf? You have Collection 2ooo in America? Why are you using this shitty makeup? Seriously you’re worth millions of dollars and you’re using a £3.99 concealer from a brand even I knew was shitty at age 11? And, for reference, here’s a reminder of what I looked like at the age I used Collection makeup:
Anyway. I heard it was a ~total dupe~ for Urban Decay’s Naked Skin Concealer (my previous holy grail) and at £3.99 I had nothing to lose, so I bought it, and I will probably never buy UD’s £17.50 ‘equivalent’ again. However, the word ‘dupe’ is maybe misleading. They’re slightly different, for example, UD markets their concealer as being ‘weightless’ whereas Collection’s says it gives ’16 hour wear’ (which, although I’ve never tested this, when set with powder I reckon it could). Whatever, apparently they’re similar enough for them to be classed as ‘dupes’, but in my opinion, I way prefer the Collection 2000 concealer.
There are only two differences I can find between the concealers (aside from the packaging and price); the colour range, and the thickness.
Here’s a swatch of the two concealers next to each other:
And here’s a picture of them blended out:
As you can see, the colours are pretty similar (they’re each others equivalent, with both of them being the lightest colours available, the UD one is ‘fair neutral’ and the Collection one is ‘Fair 1’) but the Collection version is a WHISPER warmer toned. I usually try and use cool toned products but the Collection one isn’t noticeably warm on me, if you’re worried about it looking orangey or whatever.
Here’s a picture with the flash on so you can see the slight slight colour difference:
As you can see on my hand, the UD one is far more watery and provides less coverage than the Collection. The Collection concealer is more suitable for ‘full glam’ as it gives you SUCH heavy coverage, especially under your eyes. When it comes to application, the Collection is a little more difficult as it ‘sets’ very quickly, but it’s very easy to work around by doing one eye/area at a time. The UD concealer is much runnier so it dries slower, meaning you can take your time with it (I usually like to let runny concealer set/go tacky for a bit anyway). With all this info in mind, I would say the Collection 2000 concealer is actually ~more of a dupe~ for the NARS radiant creamy concealer than it is for the UD one.
Colour wise, neither ranges are going to be great for deeper skin tones. The UD concealer comes in 8 colours, mainly in the mid range, and the Collection concealer only comes in 4 (!!!). Also I’d say you have to set both with powder but tbh I wouldn’t not set any concealer with powder even if it promised to stay crease proof all day. They’re lying.
I haven’t used the UD concealer in a hot minute since buying the Collection concealer, so this weekend I thought I’d bust it back out. It was more easy to work with, but I still found myself adding the Collection concealer on top. Now I’ve experienced the truly FULL coverage, brightening, perfecting Collection 2000 concealer gives me, the UD one just doesn’t give me what I want. I’ll still use it for more natural days and for spot concealing, but tbh, if you want full, BAM, beauty YouTuber level coverage, the UD one prob isn’t for you. But then again, if you hate full cake face, the Collection one isn’t for you.
If you’re unsure I’d say buy it anyway cos GIRL IT’S ONLY £3.99 AND SUPERDRUG ALWAYS HAS SALES ON ANYWAY. I don’t usually like saying RUN GO BUY IT YOU NEED THIS cos I feel bad when people buy stuff off my recommendation but this is so good for so little $ I 100% recommend.
Have you tried either? Or have a fav concealer I need to try?