This or That: Dolce and Gabbana Perfect Matte Foundation SPF 20 Dupe
The packaging is reminiscent of Chanel foundations.
If you’ve ever wondered whether or not drugstore makeup is on par with department store makeup, here’s some food for thought: I recently discovered two foundations that have virtually identical ingredient lists! One is from Dolce and Gabbana and retails for $66. The other is from CoverGirl and retails from anywhere between $5 and $10, depending on the seller.
Ingredients for the Dolce and Gabbana and CoverGirl Foundations
Based on packaging, here is the ingredients list for the Dolce & Gabbana (D&G) Perfect Matte Foundation SPF 20.
Active Ingredients: Ensulizole 3%
Inactive Ingredients: Water, cyclomethicone, propylene glycol, talc, dimethicone, aluminum starch octenylsuccinate, sodium chloride, PEG/PPG-18/18 dimethicone, PVP, benzyl alcohol, phenoxyethanol, sodium hydroxide, ethylene/methacrylate copolymer, arachidyl behenate, trihydroxystearin, tocopheryl acetate, silica, methicone, sodium benzoate, HDI/trimethylol hexyllactone crosspolymer, synthetic wax, polyglyceryl-4 isostearate, cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 dimethicone, hexyl laurate, isopropyl titanium triisostearate, ethylene brassylate, polyethylene, iron oxides, titanium dioxide
Based on the packaging, here is the ingredients list for the CoverGirl (CG) Outlast Stay Fabulous 3-in-1 Foundation SPF 20.
Active Ingredients: Ensulizole 3%
Inactive Ingredients: Water, cyclopentasiloxane, propylene glycol, talc, dimethicone, aluminum starch octenylsuccinate, sodium chloride, PEG/PPG-18/18 dimethicone, PVP, benzyl alcohol, phenoxyethanol, sodium hydroxide, ethylene/methacrylate copolymer, trihydroxystearin, arachidyl behenate, methicone, silica, synthetic wax, sodium benzoate, hexyl laurate, polyglyceryl-4 isostearate, cetyl PEG/PPG-10/1 dimethicone, isopropyl titanium triisostearate, ethylene brassylate, behenic acid, polyethylene, iron oxides, titanium dioxide.
A drugstore foundation that comes with a pump?! WHAT?!?!
I have highlighted the ingredients that differ in the two formulations. As you can see, they are few in number. Every other ingredient is exactly the same, though some of them—particularly the ones toward the end of the lists, are not in the same order. However, note that because the FDA allows for ingredients that are present in <1% to be listed in any order, it is logical to conclude that that is the case here, given the numerous other similarities. But before we simply write off or ignore the meager differences, and claim these two products to be identical, let’s see if we can draw further similarities and narrow the margin of doubt, because that’s what (we; yes you, too!) good scientists do.
Cyclomethicone and Cyclopentasiloxane
Cyclopentasiloxane; it makes up ~75% of cyclomethicone.
For the majority of people, it’s difficult to recognize that some ingredients are not made up of one distinct compound, while others are. In our case for example, the box of the D&G foundation states that the second ingredient present is cyclomethicone, while that of the CG states that the second ingredient is cyclopentasiloxane. At first glance, it would appear that these are two different ingredients.
However, cyclomethicone is actually a blend of cyclopentasiloxane (~75%) and cyclohexasiloxane (~25%)! It’s likely that because a majority of cyclomethicone consists of cyclopentasiloxane, the latter was chosen to display on the packaging of the CG item. D&G obviously chose to retain the less specific ingredient name.
Tocopheryl Acetate and Behenic Acid
Behenic acid: notice the long carbon chain.
Tocopheryl acetate: the long carbon chain is what gives both ingredients their emollient properties.
Okay this time around, these two ingredients are indeed completely different compounds. However, their functions are rather similar. In cosmetic products, both vitamin E acetate and behenic acid have smoothing and emollient properties that improve moisturization. It is likely that D&G chose to substitute behenic acid with tocopheryl acetate because antioxidants are all the rage; it’s what consumers want to see in an expensive product. Furthermore, it may allow D&G it to make additional claims based off of the inclusion of vitamin E.
HDI/Trimethylol Hexyllactone Crosspolymer
For this ingredient however, I have no concrete rationalizations for why it was included. Its function is that it acts as an anti-caking agent whose microspheres help blur pigments. But really, the silicone content already does that. Perhaps D&G chose a complicated-sounding ingredient to impress potential buyers into thinking that the formulation is sophisticated. Or maybe some people associated HDI with HDMI, so they’ll think that HD-anything means better. I don’t know. I’m pretty much grasping at straws here.
Anyways, this is the sole discrepancy between the two ingredient lists for which I cannot substantively account.
Conclusion: Why the Minor Changes?
Is it really just about money?
Unfortunately, the reason behind these miniscule alterations is unclear. Since I’ve been musing and theorizing for a good portion of this post, I might as well do a bit more. It may be because the people behind D&G wanted to create distance so people would think that while the two formulations are similar, theirs is superior; it plays on people’s ingrained tendency to believe that, “You get what you pay for.”
Furthermore, it makes sense to deduce that CG manufactured the formulation and sold it to D&G, who basically repackaged and rebranded the foundation. This theory is supported by the fact that the CG foundation was launched more than two months before the D&G version. Finally, because D&G is a significantly less-impacting and smaller niche brand, it may not have had the appropriate operating budget to formulate an original formulation in a cost-efficient manner. Buying an existing formulation, changing it slightly, and then selling it for a hefty profit, would be the more attractive option.
Ultimately, it is up to the you whether or not the VERY slight differences in ingredients—primarily the HDI/trimethlol hexyllactone crosspolymer content, is worth the comparatively exorbitant price tag of the D&G foundation. I for one will definitely NOT be trying it. (Please note that I have not tried either foundation, but I hear that the CG is a light-medium coverage, matte-finish foundation, whose shades tend to run more pink than yellow.)
What about you guys? What are your thoughts on this comparison? In general, what do you think about drugstore foundations versus department store ones?
Oh, and two more “coincidences” that support this buying and selling theory? Both (D&G and CG) foundations have fourteen shades, and as a reader (Anne) pointed out: both brands are subsidiaries of P&G.
And please don’t hesitate to play Devil’s advocate and argue against me! As seen with Nicki’s review of the Perricone MD Blue Plasma and mine of the same product, two individuals can interpret the same data very differently, which is an intriguing notion! So discuss away!
About Author
John Su describes himself as eccentric—you might find him having a conversation with himself. He’s a stickler for accuracy, so you might find him correcting one thing or another! His goal is to answer questions and provide unbiased, meaningful, and insightful information when it comes to skin care. His underlying motivations stem from a need to inform people who have doubts, questions, or even prayers for solutions to their problems. He has his own skin care blog, The Triple Helixian.
View all John Su posts.(20) Readers Comments
Leave A Reply
Leave a Reply
Cate
This was really interesting. Great work!
John Su
@Cate
Glad you liked it and thanks!
NeenaJ
Nice detective work! I’m curious about the ingredient, cyclopentasiloxane. It’s insoluble in water but, these foundations are water based – how would that work? Also, I think this might be an ingredient I’m sensitive to (in that I think it may cause me to break out) but, is there any reason for that except that I might be sensitive to ‘cones?
Thanks!
John Su
@NeenaJ
Thanks! I try.
Yes, silicones are insoluble in water. So what allows them to mix together and stay that way is the use of emulsifiers/surfactants. These types of compounds in-part reduce the surface tension between the two phases (water and oil phases). This technique is employed in virtually every skin care product!
As for the sensitivity issue, it’s more likely that you’re having a reaction to one or more of the preservatives and/or other trace ingredients. Silicones hardly ever elicit any kind of allergic or hypersensitivity reaction; though like with anything, that can happen.
Does that all make sense?
Rozy
Awesome CG has an airless pump much more hygienic than the Loreal I used to use which has an open circular opening at the top! I have heard great reviews of this product!
Anne
Both of these cosmetics lines are owned by P&G, so maybe it’s not so surprising that some of the products share ingredient lists if they share a singular R&D department?
This is an awesome post, thank you for the diligence!!
Eileen
OK, devil’s advocate here
Since the ingredients are a bit different and the actual percentage of each ingredient is unknown, the only way a realistic evaluation of the products as dupes can be made is by testing the actual products on the skin to see how they perform. Just looking at an ingredient list can be deceptive as it doesn’t tell you where the two formulations might differ in regards to the amounts of the ingredients that are present in the product. The actual formulation can make a significant difference in the product’s cosmetic appeal and efficacy. An ingredient list is a starting point, but in no way is it sufficient to declare two products dupes.
Here’s a silly, but valid, analogy: You can bake two cakes using the exact same ingredients, but the finished cakes can look and taste quite different. One can taste like ambrosia and the other like dust. How is that possible? They contain the same ingredients! True, but it is the proportions of those ingredients that determine how those cakes are going to come out. One might have an extra egg, or a bit more vanilla, or a bit more salt, or . . . Same ingredients in different amounts create different cakes. Which one appeals to you? I guess, you’ll just have to taste them both and decide.
I have nothing against dupes. I recently found an excellent one for SkinCeuticles CE Furelic, but I did a side by side comparison for a few weeks before making the switch and recommending the alternative product to friends. I didn’t just read two ingredient lists and declare the products dupes. To reiterate, lists are just a starting point.
John Su
@Rozy
Seriously. How hard is it to include a pump?
John Su
@Anne
Thanks! And nice catch. I added that information into the post.
John Su
@Eileen
Good work! You’ve pointed out the most glaring fallacy of this post: that the ingredient lists can only reveal so much. Well, it’s more like the most glaring fallacy of every theoretical product review.
Now, I’m sure you saw a “but” coming on, so here it is!
However, given the many other similarities (same number of shades, same overarching corporation P&G, same % of ensulizole, same SPF rating of 20, similar time of product launch, similar cosmetic claims of having matte “natural” coverage, etc); all of these support the theory that they are virtually identical in formulation.
For example, one of the more significant and impacting similarities is the concentration of the UV filter content in context with the SPF rating. 3% ensulizole by itself gives an SPF rating of about 6. In order to achieve an SPF rating of 20, it requires a rather specific group of ingredients in certain concentrations in order to pull that off. And given the restraints of having the exact same list of ingredients to choose from, largely reduces the possibility of different concentrations of those same ingredients. Furthermore, even things like the similarities in texture and finish can be extrapolated from this concept. Because SPF ratings are taken after a product has set, in order for two foundations to have the same SPF rating, it would have to have very similar crystallization tendencies, thickness of the dried product, etc; all of which, are again, affected by the concentrations of the ingredients. If the concentrations were different as you claim, then they would most likely have different SPF ratings. And this is just one example.
Overall, what you’re saying is plausible, but highly unlikely. And as the world works, you follow the evidence. It may not always lead to the truth, but it usually does. Anyways, A+ for effort!
By the way, I really liked your cake analogy! It makes me tummy grumble.
Angela
Hey Eileen! What as the dupe that you found for SkinCeuticles CE Furelic?
Eileen
Hi John,
Looks like I owe you a piece of cake–of the ambrosia kind; not the dust!
. I guess the point I was trying to make is that too many people will compare two ingredient lists and jump to the conclusion that the products are dupes. That is not necessarily true. As I said, it is a starting point. You obviously used it as such, but then added your research to the mix before making a well-informed decision. That’s as it should be. You get an A+ for effort, too. 
I know I’ve mentioned it before, but your articles are always interesting, informative, and instructive. You rock!
Eileen
Hi Angela,
Cosmetic Skin Solutions CE Ferulic ($39.95 on Amazon) contains the same percentage of the three workhorses that you’re paying for when you purchase SkinCeuticals CE Ferulic: 15% L-Ascorbic Acid (C), 1% Alpha Tocopherol (E), and .5% Ferulic Acid. The other ingredients are also very similar. After using CSS on half my face, neck and chest and SC on the other half every day for three weeks, I could see absolutely no difference. As soon as my SC was finished, I switched over entirely to the CSS version and have been very pleased with the results.
Sarah
Another very interesting article, John! You are by far, my favorite contributor on this site. I don’t even bother to comment on other contributor’s, because you’re the only one that seem to genuinely care about replying.
“…Or maybe some people associated HDI with HDMI, so they’ll think that HD-anything means better…” This is so funny!
And I think your reply to Eileen’s comment on the SPF20 rating is very smart. It further convinces me that these two foundations are in fact the same. I am all for conspiracy theories. I really do think these companies often make similar products but trick us into thinking one is more superior than the other by employing clever marketing.
John Su
@Eileen
Why thank you! I do love my baked goods.
And I completely understand your point. I guess I was playing Devil’s advocate to your DA. Haha.
As always, I appreciate your constructive comments and insightful observations!
John Su
@Sarah
That really means a lot! I’m flattered and humbled to occupy your “top” spot.
And I’m sure the other contributors care just as much about replying. They’re probably just too busy with other stuff.
Anyways, thanks for your continued enthusiasm and support.
Lars
I think what would be most beneficial to me regarding this post is a side-by-side photo comparison of the products. I love the science behind your post, John, but my eyeballs are hungry for visuals!
John Su
@Lars
Yeah, I get what you’re saying! But for me personally, I didn’t consider it worth the trouble just because the formulas are so similar/exact on paper. If they indeed are meaningfully different, side-by-side comparisons wouldn’t really help you decide on which is more appropriate. You would really have to try the two formulations yourself in order to compare the texture, finish, longevity, and ease of application.
But really, like I pointed out via multiple points in the post, I believe these two formulations to be identical. But, I’ll make sure to include more pictures in further posts!
Annie
Very interesting. The chemical talk was sorta over my head, but hearing an expert break it down really makes you think about what you’re spending money on. Thank you for this interesting article.
John Su
@Annie
You’re welcome, and I’m glad that you enjoyed the article. As for the technical stuff, the impressive thing is that despite that minor disadvantage, you still took the time and effort to get through the entire article. Props!