New for Spring 2014-Rimmel Stay Matte Liquid Mousse Foundation;
vs. NYX Stay Matte Not Flat Foundation
VS
NYX is CRUELTY FREE!!!
Price for both is about $7 for 1 ounce
I had to do my first comparison review with Rimmel's New Stay Matte Liquid Mousse Foundation and NYX's Stay Matte Not Flat Foundation, for a few reasons. 1) The friggin names are so similar people & google are bound to get them mixed up, 2) The shade selection for each of them is the total opposite of the other one, and 3) well, the formulas are nearly IDENTICAL. (As in IDENTICAL. There are a few differences in the ingredients that makeup 1% of the formula, but other than that, they are one in the same.)
I love both brands, but the similarities here are just too much for words. I can't really call Rimmel Stay Matte Liquid Mousse a "Dupe" for NYX's Stay Matte, because Dupe usually refers to high end/low end or shade similarities, and these two are the same price, both wonderfully priced drugstore brands, and again, the shade ranges could not be more different from one another.
If you have tried Nyx Stay Matte Not Flat and you love it, you will love Rimmel's version. If you hate it, you will probably hate Rimmel's as well. The exception would be, if you couldn't find a shade match with NYX, you are bound to find it with Rimmel & Vice versa.
NYX has 20 shades, although my Ulta only had 5. NYX has gone a different route in the idea of shades. They are bright and vibrant and some would consider extreme, but I personally like them and consider them workable.
Rimmel didn't chose the large shade range NYX did. In fact, shade wise, there is no comparison between the two, NYX wins. Rimmel's shades tend to oxidize horribly, their just not great and they're very beige & pink. NYX did have a few slip ups with their shade range and some are very bright or very peach, but most are very wearable for the right skintone, and, in fact, some of the brighter shades will liven a dull complexion when used correctly!
As for the foundations themselves, there is a reason Rimmel released their version in time for summer, it is a product made to absorb excess oils. The formula's for both are heavy in cyclopentasiloxane which is a commonly used silicone which has a drying effect when exposed to air. This makes it very effective at absorbing oil.
The other key ingredient here, is isodecane which is a solvent type ingredient. This is the ingredient in most, if not all, formulas which are designed to be long lasting. Products with isododecane will last longer than products without and people with dry skin may find them too drying.
The texture of these two foundations is quite similar as both are a mousse like cream formula, but Rimmel's is slightly thicker initially.
It is really a toss up over which you prefer and will likely be entirely dependent on the shade ranges offered, (provided you have the appropriate skin type,) and how much you care about animal testing since NYX is CRUELTY FREE!
Anyone tried either or both of these? What's your preference?
01- Ivory
02- Nude
04 Creamy Natural
05 Soft Beige
06 Medium Beige
 |
| Rimmel Stay Matte Liquid Mousse Foundation Swatches of Shades 100 Ivory, 091 Light Ivory, 010 Porcelain, 103 True Ivory, 200 Soft Beige, 201 Classic Beige, 203 True Beige, 300 Sand |
 |
| NYX Stay Matte Not Flat Foundation Review Swatches of Shades 01- Ivory 02- Nude 04 Creamy Natural 05 Soft Beige 06 Medium Beige |
Rimmel isn't cruelty free, just so you know.
ReplyDeleteThanks Raven. I added some text under the stock images that should clarify the CRUELTY FREE label is directed towards NYX, NOT Rimmel. Thanks so much for pointing that out!
ReplyDeleteYou would think that coming from a country where animal testing was illegal (England), that Rimmel & NYC, & Calvin Klein & Playboy's parent company Coty would have refrained from animal testing, especially where they voluntarily ceased all vivisection 15 years before it was mandatory, but Chinese money talks.....unfortunately!
Thanks so much again for pointing out my lack of clarification!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete