AURIC Tourmaline Glow Lust Review & Swatches
Tourmaline
Auric Tourmaline Glow Lust Radiant Luminizer ($45.00 for 1.13 oz.) is a medium-dark brown with subtle, warmer red undertones and a natural sheen. The pearl throughout was very fine, so it almost didn’t even look like it had shimmery, just added a bit of glow to the skin as it wasn’t too dewy applied and blended out (or mixed with a base product).
The coverage was buildable and really depended on how it was used. It sheered out readily if desired, particularly when mixed with other products, while it had more semi-sheer to medium, buildable coverage when applied on its own (as a standalone highlighter, or in my case, more like a glowing bronzer).
The texture was smooth, lightweight, and spreadable with good glide across my skin, including over foundation as it did not lift up base products. It didn’t feel tacky or wet after it was applied and blended out. It wore well for nine hours as a standalone cheek/highlighter product, and it did not impact the longevity of my foundation.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Becca Luna (6.5) (-, $30.00) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- elf 8 (Rich Cool) (P, $14.00) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Becca Borealis (5.5) (-, $30.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- Auric Axinite (P, $45.00) is darker, cooler (85% similar).
- elf 7 (Deep/Rich Cool) (P, $14.00) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Charlotte Tilbury Deep (8) (P, $44.00) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (85% similar).
- MAC Barococoa (LE, $28.00) is more shimmery, lighter, less pigmented (85% similar).
- MAC Bronzejour (LE, $28.00) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Charlotte Tilbury Tan/Dark (6.5) (P, $44.00) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- Auric Goldstone (P, $45.00) (80% similar).
Formula Overview
$45.00/1.13 oz. - $39.82 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to have buildable coverage so it can be used "alone" or "blended" with skincare/foundation or "used as a highlighter on top of foundation."
The consistency was creamy, slightly thicker than a lot of liquid luminizers (but not heavy or overly thick), and it seemed more pigmented in its base compared to other liquid luminizers as well.
It had very fine pearl throughout that added luminosity and a subtle-to-light glow to skin with light dewiness. The shimmer was nearly undetectable when applied and diffused as a standalone product but still delivered a noticeable uptick in glowiness to my skin whether used alone or mixed in.
It was easy to mix in with moisturizer, primer, and foundation, and it also worked well patted on top of the high points of the face, whether my skin was bare or it was on top of foundation. I didn't have issues with it lifting up my base products--set and unset--when applied on top. It dried down for the most part, retained light dewiness to the eye, and wasn't tacky.
As a standalone highlighter, it wore well for nine hours before fading a bit, and I didn't notice any impact to longevity when combined with base products.
It felt more like a cross between Charlotte Tilbury's Hollywood Flawless Filter (which is thinner, a little runnier in comparison, and has more pronounced pearl/shimmer) and Natasha Denona's original Face Glow formula (which was a thicker, cream consistency that squeezed out of a tube and was very glowing but not as visibly shimmery).
The reality is that if you're someone who mixes these types of products with moisturizers or foundations, differences get more and more minimized (as they tend to sheer out, as they are supposed to). I wouldn't expect that if you're still working your way through something else and enjoy that that you'd have to run to get this, but it is certainly worth trying in the future if you like the idea of a subtler sheen but like this type of product.
Browse all of our Auric Glow Lust Radiant Luminizer swatches.
Ingredients
Even though this is not my shade, I much prefer the looks of this one over CT’s version! There’s just more of a rich glow that I’m seeing coming from this one.
If you are into liquid highlighters, this would be the best as it works when wearing foundation or not. It looked like it was easy to apply and the finish is subtle, not over the top shimmer. Really nice.
How do you feel this formula compares to the Charlotte Tilbury Flawless Filter?
I talked about this under “formula overview” š
I missed that! Thank you.
I am 100% buying one of these Iām just watching your swatches to determine which will be my shade I like the Hollywood Flawless Filter a lot and am becoming more drawn to these sorts of products plus I respect the brand owner immensely and am unsurprised she chose to come out with an inclusive range. Now when can we expect your eyeshadows Iām excited for those too!
Right now, I’m guessing March/April. The stars would really have to align, so-to-speak, for a February launch, for me! š I’m hoping we’ll have more clarity soon!