Concealer: Maybelline Age Rewind vs MAC Pro Longwear Concealer

I decided to do the ultimate concealer comparison between the two most popular concealers available to cosmetics junkies: MAC Pro Longwear Concealer and Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser Concealer (which is also known as Maybelline The Eraser Eye Instant Anti Age concealer as it recently got re-branded for the UK, which is why it says this on my product).

1. Packaging:
While both products come in glass bottles, the Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser one is better packaged, with a twist top and a fuzzy under-eye applicator. It took a LOT of twisting to get my twist-top to dispense product, but I had the same problem with the MAC Pro Longwear’s pump top, and I remember with both of them spending ages trying to get them to dispense and wondering if I’d bought duds!! I’m not very patient haha.

Left, Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser Concealer shade Light. Right, MAC Pro Longwear Concealer shade NC20. Review Comparison
Left, Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser Concealer shade Light. Right, MAC Pro Longwear Concealer shade NC20.

2. Value for Money:
Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser is $6.99 (or £7.99) but you get 6.8ml where there’s 9ml in the MAC Pro Longwear Concealer although it costs $21.00 (or £17.50), so the Maybelline one is still better value for money.

3. Color:
I’ve done photos of the swatches. I’m neutral toned but I prefer yellow undertones to a product so MAC’s NC20 was matched to me in the shop (as their warm/cool is ass-backwards compared to everyone else’s). MAC Pro Longwear concealers are available in a huge range of colors so there’s something for everyone. The Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser lost points here because it only comes in “light” or “medium” and I bought light but really it was very pink which I disliked.

4. Coverage:
The MAC Pro Longwear had better coverage on its own or on top of foundation BUT it came at the expense of looking cakey. Underneath foundation, Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser was better. As you can see in the photo below, without any other makeup on my face, both products give similar coverage to each other, but both products have a transparency that appears in bad lighting (see second picture when I’ve fiddled with the camera settings to replicate bad lighting).

Left, MAC Pro Longwear concealer shade NC20, right, Maybelline Instant Anti Age The Eraser Eye review compare
Left, MAC Pro Longwear concealer shade NC20, right, Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser (no other make up on face except concealer) in good lighting.
Left is MAC Pro Longwear Concealer in NC20, right is Maybelline Eraser Eye Instant Anti Age concealer in Light. review compare
Bleurgh Calgon take it away!!!! Left is MAC Pro Longwear Concealer in NC20, right is Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser concealer in Light. This (purposely badly lit) picture shows they’re a bit transparent in bad lighting and therefore pretty ineffective on their own.

5. Finish:
The Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser has a MUCH better finish, it looks more natural where the MAC Pro Longweaer concealer caked into my fine lines and even found new ones that I don’t usually have. Obviously, the old lady look isn’t what I’m going for when I use a concealer so this is a huge dealbreaker for me.

6. How does it work with other make up?
The MAC Pro Longwear works over most foundations although even with moisturizer and primer it really magnifies those fine lines which bothers me. The Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser concealer looks more natural underneath foundation, and works well to minimize the appearance of discoloration and skin imperfections.  I put Sana Keana Pore Putty BB Pact (a sort of BB cream foundation crossover) over the two concealers, and added lipgloss because my lips were dry, but didn’t put any other products on, and the results are quite good – although it’s obvious that, even under the Sana Pore Putty, the MAC Pro Longwear concealer has gone translucent and the dark patch is showing through under the eye, whereas the Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser has done a much better job of making the imperfections disappear.

MAC Pro Longwear on left, Maybelline Eraser Eye Instant Anti-Ageing on right, under Sana Keana Pore putty, with lipgloss on lips. compare review
MAC Pro Longwear on left, Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser on right, under Sana Keana Pore putty, with lipgloss on lips.
MAC Pro Longwear on left, Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser on right, under Sana Keana Pore putty, with lipgloss on lips. review compare
MAC Pro Longwear on left, Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser on right, under Sana Keana Pore putty.

7. Irritation:
I find the Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser to be less drying and irritating to the eye where the MAC pro longwear concealer is both more drying and more irritating, and leaves my eye area sensitive even after I remove my make up. For this reason, I find myself reaching for the Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser more.

8. Long Lasting:
I found they both lasted as long as each other, the MAC pro-longwear creased from the moment it was dry so it didn’t really wear very well and its formulation makes it a total bitch to fully remove without micellar water. The Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser was easier to remove and didn’t seem to disappear over the course of the day.

Conclusion:
I like the color range, coverage and blendability of the MAC one, but the Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser Concealer gives a much better finish overall and is more comfortable to wear, so I personally prefer the Maybelline one even though the color is definitely not perfect for my skin, because I can put foundation or powder over the top to correct color but I can’t do anything to cover up the problems I have with the MAC one. I would still use the MAC one, but not on dull, dark days or evenings or any time I might go into bad lighting.  Overall, if you are looking for a new concealer and can’t decide between the MAC pro longwear concealer and the Maybelline Age Rewind Eraser, I would recommend the Maybelline one, available here in the US (where it’s still called Age Rewind) or here in the UK (where it’s been renamed Maybelline Instant Anti-Ageing The Eraser Eye) (affiliate links, but obviously I only link to things I actually recommend even if, such as in this case, it’s the cheaper option).

Have you tried either of these? Let me know what you thought of them in the comments!

Advertisements

Elizabeth Arden Lipstick Review: Ceramide Ultra vs Plump Perfect

Today I wanted to do a beauty post to talk about the similarities and differences between two Elizabeth Arden lipsticks –  the new Elizabeth Arden Ceramide Ultra lipstick and the recently-discontinued Elizabeth Arden Plump Perfect lipstick.

Elizabeth Arden Ceramide Ultra vs Elizabeth Arden Plump Perfect. review
Elizabeth Arden Ceramide Ultra vs Elizabeth Arden Plump Perfect… which is better? Dun dun DUNNNNN…

Last time we talked about lipsticks I was trying to get my hands on the Elizabeth Arden Plump Perfect lipstick to find out how it compared to other plumping products that I had reviewed.  I ordered one on Amazon and was super excited for it to arrive.

Due to a set of weird co-incidences, I had to send it off to get it tested to make sure it really was a genuine product.  In the meantime, I tried to buy another one from Boots because I was stoked to get this lipstick and I wanted it NOW.

Due to another set of bizzarre events, Boots did not send me the Plump Perfect lipstick, they actually sent me the Ceramide Ultra lipstick.  I told them, they apologized, and then sent me the exact same wrong lipstick again.  So I gave up on trying to get what I ordered and decided to just use the Ceramide Ultra lipstick instead.

The ceramide ultra lipstick sitting on its own. This is the shade Sugar. review tutorial
The Elizabeth Arden Ceramide Ultra lipstick sitting on its own. This is the shade Sugar.

The Plump Perfect lipstick that I’d originally bought on Amazon then came back, confirmed as genuine, and I thought to myself, why not do an article comparing these two lipsticks, I’m sure loads of people want to know whether the new one is anything like the discontinued (but still available on Amazon) version.  Boots claims to stock the Plump Perfect lipstick but as you can see, it’s extremely likely you’ll end up with the Ceramide Ultra lipstick if you try to get one from them.

Here’s my detailed comparison:

  1. Packaging:  The Plump Perfect is in a thicker, plastic gold-coloured tube.  The Ceramide Ultra lipstick comes in this beautiful (slimmer) golden tube that just makes you feel like a queen when you get it out of its silver box (I keep mine in its box).
  2. Colour payoff:  The Ceramide Ultra has (very slightly) more colour payoff but there’s really not much difference between them for this.   You have to go over the Plump Perfect a few times to get a similar colour payoff.
  3. Shade: Since I couldn’t get the exact same shade, I’m comparing the shade “Sugar” in Ceramide Ultra Lipstick with “Perfect Bare” in the Plump Perfect.  The main difference in these shades is that Perfect Bare was a very sparkly brown lipstick whereas the Sugar colour is more matte/satin with slightly more of a pink base.  This doesn’t really make a difference to how they look on my face because I’m neutral toned, but it’s worth knowing for the 90% of you who are more warm or cool toned.

    Swatches! The Elizabeth Arden Ceramide Ultra in Sugar (left) and the Elizabeth Arden Plump Perfect in Perfect Bare (right)
    Swatches! The Elizabeth Arden Ceramide Ultra in Sugar (left) and the Elizabeth Arden Plump Perfect in Perfect Bare (right). The one on the right has a shimmery sparkle in real life but the camera didn’t want to pick up on it today because it’s too cloudy.
  4. Texture: The Plump Perfect lipstick feels slightly rougher, or more solid, than the Ceramide Ultra lipstick.
  5. Weight: They’re both 3.5g or 0.12oz.
  6. Duration: The colour was less long lasting on the Ceramide Ultra – but I like to take my lippie off when I eat and drink and reapply it afterwards so I prefer it to be easy to remove (unless it’s a longwear lip stain type thing in which case it needs to stay PUT), so if you want a slightly longer lasting lipstick go for the Plump Perfect.

    The colour left over after I wiped it off with a tissue; as you can see, there's slightly more left behind on the right (plump perfect) but neither of them are particularly longwearing.
    The colour left over after I wiped it off with a tissue; as you can see, there’s slightly more left behind on the right (plump perfect) but neither of them are particularly longwearing.
  7. Plumping: The thing that really swayed me towards the Ceramide Ultra lipstick was that it was more plumping than the Plump Perfect lipstick. I wore it non-stop for the first two weeks I had it, then I stopped wearing it after I found out it was the wrong product, and my lips stayed pretty plump for several days after I discontinued it. My top lip, especially, really looked better than I’ve ever seen it. Usually I have trouble trying to plump my top lip that when I plump it, it tends to stick out more but doesn’t seem to fill downwards, which is where I want it to go. With the Ceramide Ultra Lipstick I was really impressed that it managed to get my top lip to fill out. When it turned out Boots still couldn’t get my order right, so I didn’t have to return the first Ceramide Ultra lipstick they sent me (I sent back the unopened one instead), I was so happy to start using the Ceramide Ultra again like you would NOT believe, I just totally fell in love with it.
    Elizabeth Arden Plump Perfect lipstick on my lips.
    Elizabeth Arden Plump Perfect lipstick in Perfect Bare on my lips.

    The Elizabeth Arden Ceramide Ultra lipstick in Sugar.
    The Elizabeth Arden Ceramide Ultra lipstick in Sugar. My head is accidentally tilted more down here, but you can see more of my top lip on this one – even though I’m smiling more which usually makes my lips thinner.
  8. Moisture: Another thing that made me fall in love with the Ceramide Ultra lipstick was that it was just so moisturizing compared to the Plump Perfect.  Usually after wearing lipstick my lips are fairly dried out, and the Plump Perfect was no exception, but the Ceramide Ultra Lipstick seemed to have a balmy moisturizing effect on my lips and I noticed a LOT less dry skin while I was using this lipstick.

Verdict: Surprisingly, I liked the Ceramide Ultra lipstick better than the Plump Perfect lipstick.  It’s just very pleasant and I keep reaching for it again and again whenever I need to put some lipstick on.

The Elizabeth Arden Ceramide Ultra Lipstick is available for £21 from any Elizabeth Arden counter. The last time I found a lipstick that I loved this much was in 2006.  I was genuinely close to tears when I thought I had to return the Elizabeth Arden Ceramide Ultra lipstick to Boots.  It blows the Elizabeth Arden Plump Perfect lipstick out of the water.  From now on, I’m going to be buying the Ceramide Ultra lipstick from an actual beauty counter, or (given my experiences trying to buy Elizabeth Arden lipstick online) who knows what I might end up with!! Even after the Plump Perfect (the one I originally bought on Amazon) came back as genuine, I still found myself reaching for the Ceramide Ultra lipstick. It just looks and feels (both in the packaging and on my face) like a better lipstick.

What do you think?  Have you tried either of these?  Which do you prefer?  Let me know in the comments!

Lash Growth Serums Revisited: Revitalash Advanced vs Rapidlash Which Is Better?

In this article I am reviewing Revitalash Advanced and Rapidlash, since month after month, my 2nd most popular article is this one: Lash Growth Serums Reviewed: RapidLash, Eveline and Rimmel.  In it, I compared Rapid Lash, Rimmel Lash Accelerator, Eveline SOS Lash Conditioner.  The winner was clearly RapidLash, but this was before I’d tried Revitalash Advanced.  Today I am going to talk about Revitalash Advanced, and how it compares to RapidLash (assume I mean Revitalash Advanced where I say “revitalash” in the rest of this article).

An epic eyelash batting contest to the death ensued.
An epic eyelash batting contest to the death ensued.


What do they look like?

The tubes almost look identical.  They’re both a slightly pearlescent silvery colour, although the Revitalash has a blue lid.  But somehow the Revitalash Advanced
one looks more high-class.  And it should do, it’s twice the price on Amazon.  It’s twin colour design also makes it easier to spot in the bathroom.  Although the RapidLash one looks like a bigger tube, they’ve both got 2ml of product in them.

Revitalash looked higher class with it's sapphire lid standing out from it's pearlescent silver body.
Revitalash looked higher class with it’s sapphire lid standing out from it’s pearlescent silver body.

What did it cost?
At full price, RapidLash is about £40 ($55) for 2ml and Revitalash Advanced is about $80 for 2ml or $120 for 3.5ml.  I paid £18.50 ($26) for my RapidLash 2ml before Christmas, and in continuous use that translated to 3 months supply.  Revitalash was £44.50 ($65) for 2ml on Amazon and it said on the listing that it was also 3 months supply, although I haven’t finished the tube yet.

Rapidlash is a slightly different pearlescent silver colour to the Revitalash.
Rapidlash is a slightly different pearlescent silver colour to the Revitalash.

Was it genuine?
One concern I had with buying half price lash serums on Amazon was whether they were genuine products or not.  I scoured the reviews (Amazon had several different listings for each) and found ones that people had said worked, and I looked for ones where people said “I’ve bought this before from my beauty salon, it’s genuine.”   It’s not enough that it says it’s coming from the correct brand name because Amazon (and sellers) frequently get this wrong and lie about where it’s coming from, so I always read the reviews on Amazon.  You have to.  I am glad to say that both the RapidLash and the Revitalash I purchased were genuine.  NOTE: Revitalash Advanced is the only Revitalash currently being made, so if it doesn’t say “Advanced” on the box you are buying old, discontinued product that could be out of date.  My Revitalash tube was also sealed in plastic inside a box that was stuck down with a circular see-through sticker, so I knew it hadn’t been opened. Even though I’ve linked to the same one I’ve bought, please do check it’s still coming from a reputable source – if there are recent listings saying it’s a fake, listen to them, as suppliers change sometimes!

This is what the box should look like.
This is what the box should look like.

How do You Use Rapidlash?
Rapidlash goes over the very root of your eyelash, where it touches the eyelid, and you have to get the product on the eyelid for it to work.  As I said in my previous review, because I have a double line of eyelashes, like Elizabeth Taylor, I have to work the stuff between the two layers because it doesn’t soak in or travel between lashes very well.


How do You Use Revitalash?

Revitalash Advanced
goes on your actual eyelashes, and should not touch your eyelid at all.  I was concerned that it might spread to my under eye area and cause irritation, but it dries very quickly (much faster than RapidLash) and yet seems to reach all my upper lashes WITHOUT spreading to my lower lashes.  See this video the manufacturers have made for an idea of how to use Revitalash: 

What About those dodgy ingredients?  The safety facts:
Neither of these products have the “glaucoma” drug in it (that’s used in Latisse, which is only available in the US and is prescription only, and will make your lashes grow PAST your eyebrows.  Latisse are VERY defensive with their patents and don’t currently let any other company use their patented lash ingredient bimatoprost) and while they both use a molecule that MIMICS the lash growth effect of the glaucoma molecule bimatoprost, they don’t have the same effect on eyes and there is literally not one single case of either Revitalash or RapidLash causing eye colour change either.

This criticism is all a VERY old story from 2005 and this was all aimed at Latisse, which has never caused eye colour change, but which is a licenced Prescription Only Product for a reason – it’s a more effective lash growth serum, but it’s also got more potential side effects!!  The story behind the eye colour change is that the INGREDIENT (bimatoprost) used in Latisse has caused eye colour change in VERY high quantities when it’s used in a different formula to treat glaucoma (where it needs to be in a high enough concentration to cause significant eye pressure drop, y’know, to treat glaucoma, a serious eye disease).  It got cross applied by those people who don’t understand science but love to talk beauty with pseudoscience.  But the truth is, nobody’s eyes have changed colour using any of these lash serums, which I’m sure Allergan and Athena (the companies that make Latisse and Revitalash respectively) are sick of having to reiterate and confirm again and again.

Revitalash DOES contain a very similar active ingredient to Latisse (dechlorodihydroxydifluoroethycloprostenolamide is the active ingredient in Revitalash) which is why it is more effective than RapidLash but it is NOT the same or Allergan (who are famously rivals with Athena Cosmetics over their lash serums) would have slapped more patent infringements on Athena for it.  RapidLash and Revitalash also DON’T contain snail secretion filtrate, unlike Marvelash (EWWWWW THAT’S GRODY TO THE MAXXX) which I wouldn’t touch with a bargepole because I have a phobia of slugs and snails.

Basically, you know Revitalash is good stuff because otherwise Allegan (who make Latisse) wouldn’t feel so threatened to keep constantly trying to get Revitalash relegated to “prescription only” (or withdrawn) because they’re scared of it being “unfair competition,” and you know Revitalash is safe because otherwise the FDA would have banned Revitalash permanently by now (and if you read the history you’ll see how many times Allergan/Latisse have tried to make this happen).  The only time Revitalash was banned, it was because of a “fair competition” law that then got laughed out of court on appeal, it was nothing to do with safety.  As a qualified chemistry teacher who knows a thing or two about science, I can wholeheartedly say that while ANYTHING can cause you an allergy (some people are allergic to water), these products are all safe.

Did they work?
They both made my eyelashes grow.  They both took a few weeks to show results.  However, I like Revitalash
better than Rapidlash for two reasons:
1. It made my eyelashes grow LONGER.
2. Revitalash
did not leave my eyes with a red rash, and didn’t leave my eyeballs feeling dry and tired.  When I used Rapidlash I was more sensitive to eye strain and dry eyes.  The first time I used it it went away after a while, but I stopped using it for 3 months and when I started again the redness and dryness never went away (but I didn’t get the under eye irritation this time).  Revitalash didn’t affect my eyes at all.

As you can see, my lashes got longer from RapidLash, but my eyelids were not happy (usually they're the same colour as the rest of my face).
As you can see, my lashes got longer from RapidLash, but my eyelids were not happy (usually they’re the same colour as the rest of my face).

What happens if you use RapidLash and Revitalash together?
You get stupidly long lashes very quickly but after 1 day your eyes feel really weird and achey and oversensitive to light and your eyelids go worse than in the picture above.  So I am quite sure the two products cannot be used together and I stopped using the RapidLash completely on day three (I wanted to make sure it wasn’t a coincidental eye ache) before I went blind or my eyes turned into antennae or I got x-ray vision or something.  I couldn’t find any information about this online so I may have been the first person to try this then write about it.  Revitalash is more expensive, but if you want properly long lashes, Revitalash is the real deal and is the one to go for because RapidLash is good, but it’s not AS good as Revitalash, and for me, the redness and occular irritation were deal breakers once I’d found a product that didn’t upset my eyes but still did the job.

The bottom line: 
I liked Revitalash
best.  It grew my lashes longer and didn’t damage my eyes at all (unless combined with RapidLash – that’s a big no no).  I wish I hadn’t hesitated in buying it, but the price really put me off.  At the end of the day, if you’ve only got £20, buy RapidLash and you won’t be too disappointed, it’s certainly the best of the original three serums I reviewed.  But if you can stretch your budget, I think Revitalash is worth the extra money.  Once your lashes are long, people say you can use Revitalash once a week for maintenance, so that will be cheaper than using it every day as the tube will last longer. As long as you’re careful about who you buy from, I strongly recommend you buy from Amazon.com
as it’s the best value for money.

The clear winner.
The clear winner: Revitalash.

Which serums have you tried?  Would you ever try one?  Let me know in the comments!

UPDATE MAY 2016: I have now written a review comparing RapidLash and Revitalash to Grande Lash MD, see which lash serum is better, Grande Lash MD, Rapid Lash or Revitalash!!