Bad Habit Artistry Eyeshadow Palette Review & Swatches
Artistry
Bad Habit Artistry 12-Pan Eyeshadow Palette ($12.00 for 0.42 oz.) contains a mix of soft and warm-toned neutrals with a few deeper, earth-toned/neutral-hued shades as well. There was a mix of mattes and shimmers with the shimmers being more frosted/less metallic. I was impressed by the overall quality of the shades and formulas, as they performed on par with most powder eyeshadow formulas. The formula used in this particular palette was soft, a little dusty, but they applied evenly, blended out well, and had good pigmentation for the most part. They lasted between seven and eight hours on their own and looked good after 12-hour wear over a primer.
Ingredients
Look Using this Product
Artistry
PPermanent. $12.00.
Is Bad Habit Artistry Palette a dupe for Anastasia’s Mario Palette?
If the palette looks familiar, that’s not a surprise; it appears to have taken heavy inspiration from Anastasia x Mario Eyeshadow Palette, which came out a few years ago. You can see a side-by-side comparison of the two palettes here. (I also re-did swatches of the Mario palette so that they were taken in more similar lighting, as I have changed cameras + lighting in the last year.)
Yes, I would say the Bad Habit Artistry Palette is a solid dupe for Anastasia’s Mario palette in color and performance. The major difference, to me, which may be a big deal to some and completely unnoticeable by others (and largely, if you don’t have the original, I don’t know that you’d spot the difference) was the size of the shimmers used throughout the Bad Habit palette, which were larger and therefore brighter, more shimmery, more frosted. Part of the magic of the Mario palette was how satin and pearl-like the shimmers were on the skin, almost melted in appearance, without appearing dusty or faded. When I applied each shade side-by-side on my eyes, the intensity of the shimmer was apparent in Bad Habit’s shimmer shades. The mattes were very comparable, just a bit dustier, and the shimmers were often the same with a couple having a looser press, which made them feel a little dustier/looser.
Thoughts on Bad Habit Beauty & The Art of Duping
Bad Habit Beauty’s eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations. What I’ve noticed is that Bad Habit’s formulas seem to be similar in the “type” but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn’t consistent between Bad Habit’s palettes–some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia’s mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona’s). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
The quality of Bad Habit’s take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath’s Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit’s shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances–they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the “magic” in the original shade, I felt. I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand’s philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia’s Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Brands that more obviously dupe other brands aren’t new; one of the more recognizable brands would be Makeup Revolution, which has a long history of obvious dupes from packaging to color schemes/concepts. They also seem to have built up a more robust catalog that of other products, too, at this point in time. They are known for their dupes of Too Faced’s palettes, like this peach-inspired one, but at the same time, they have several more palettes with similar designs that are beyond what Too Faced has done. Bad Habit has, thus far, seemed to change their packaging and doesn’t always conform to the same size/palette shape while rearranging the color scheme and giving their shades new names. Two examples that seem to be more “palatable” to a greater number of people are dupes like Wet ‘n’ Wild’s Rose in the Air palette (very similar to Anastasia’s Modern Renaissance palette) and ColourPop’s Yes, Please palette (very similar to Natasha Denona’s Sunset palette). Shades like NARS’ iconic Orgasm have found their way into many, many lines over the years. Dupes have existed for a long time, some intentional and surely others by the nature of a finite number of shades/finishes and the like.
The older I get, the more important I see accessibility to products being as it seems to me that purchasing the “original” is often a position of privilege. I’d rather someone spend $12, and live within their budget, to enjoy a trend or concept than spend $50 on something that they can’t afford. I understand and feel for the creator for all of the creativity and effort that may have went into producing the color concept and scheme, which is why I would prefer to see some tweaks (I like to think of them as improvements–making a palette more versatile by adding another mid-tone or deep shade or making something cooler/warmer) and a standardization in formula. I see a lot of shades of gray and certainly think there can be different positions/opinions to have.
Pearl
Pearl is a light-medium, orange-gold with a satin finish. It had a slightly dusty texture but good pigmentation that only sheered out a touch over bare skin (but adhered better over primer). It wore well for seven and a half hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- MAC A Glimmer of Gold #1 (PiP, $21.00) is cooler (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Blunt (DC, $19.00) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Anastasia Hollywood (LE, $12.00) is less shimmery, lighter (95% similar).
- Wet 'n' Wild Not a Basic Peach #10 (PiP, ) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- MAC Gilded Night #2 (LE, $21.00) is more shimmery, lighter, brighter (90% similar).
- Milani Bella Sand (02) (P, $4.49) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Make Up For Ever Famed (LE, ) is lighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Gucci Beauty Oro (DC, $37.00) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- NARS Hollywoodland (P, $28.00) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
- Dior Sundeck #2 (LE, ) is lighter (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Mica and Titanium Dixoide (CI 77891), Phenyl Trimethicone, Talc, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Magnesium Stearate, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), Chromium Oxide Greens (CI 77288), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Look Using this Product
Pearl
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Sofia
Sofia is a light-medium, rosy copper with warm undertones and a metallic sheen. The pigmentation was semi-opaque in a single layer, but it built up well, and it applied with nearly opaque coverage when patted on top of a primer. The texture was softer and dustier, as it seemed to be more loosely pressed in the pan, and naturally, it was the type of texture/finish that would work best with a dampened brush. There was a touch of fallout during application but wasn’t too bad given the state of the texture. It lasted for seven and a half hours on me before I noticed some fading.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Sydney Grace Stolen Kiss (P, $8.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Too Faced Cutie Patootie (LE, $16.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- ColourPop Warm Up (P, $6.00) is less shimmery, lighter, warmer (95% similar).
- Makeup by Mario Ethereal Eyes #6 (LE, ) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- ColourPop Designer Duds (PiP, $4.50) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Hourglass Reflect (P, $29.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty About Last Night No. 06 (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
- Makeup Geek Elegance (LE, $9.99) is cooler (90% similar).
- LORAC Aurora (PiP, ) is darker (90% similar).
- Charlotte Tilbury Legendary Muse #1 (LE, ) is warmer (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Mica and Titanium Dixoide (CI 77891), Phenyl Trimethicone, Talc, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Magnesium Stearate, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), Chromium Oxide Greens (CI 77288), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Look Using this Product
Sofia
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Tuscany
Tuscany is a medium-dark brown with warm, reddish undertones and a matte finish. It was somewhat powdery in the pan, so there was a bit of fallout during application if I swept it on with a fluffy brush and forgot to tap off the excess. The pigmentation was medium but buildable with two to three layers. This shade stayed on well for seven and a half hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- ColourPop Livin' (PiP, $4.50) is darker (95% similar).
- Bad Habit Interstellar (PiP, ) is brighter (95% similar).
- Pat McGrath Paradiso (LE, $25.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- Too Faced Cookie Call (LE, $16.00) is darker (90% similar).
- Coloured Raine Moments (DC, $6.99) is darker (90% similar).
- ColourPop Sorrel (LE, $4.50) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Natasha Denona Vulcano (125CM) (PiP, ) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- ColourPop Herd to Get (LE, $4.50) is lighter, brighter, cooler (90% similar).
- Anastasia Violeta (LE, $12.00) is more pigmented, cooler, better quality (90% similar).
- Makeup Geek Cabin Fever (DC, $6.00) is darker (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Talc, Mica, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Phenyl Trimethicone, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Magnesium Stearate, Silica, Nylon-12, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891), Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Look Using this Product
Tuscany
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Daphne
Daphne is a light-medium gold with strong, warm undertones and a metallic sheen. It had nearly opaque pigmentation with a soft, smooth consistency that was blendable and adhered well to bare skin. It wore well for seven and a half hours on me before fading noticeably.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- NARS Sexed (LE, $19.00) is less shimmery, warmer (95% similar).
- Tarte Candle (PiP, ) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- ColourPop Okay (LE, $6.00) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (95% similar).
- NARS Hollywoodland (P, $28.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Dior Lucky Star #3 (LE, ) is lighter, cooler (95% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Suspicion #1 (PiP, ) is less shimmery, warmer (95% similar).
- ColourPop Droid (LE, $4.50) is less shimmery, cooler (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Barely Baked (PiP, $19.00) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- Dior Mirror Mirror #2 (LE, ) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Dior Sundeck #2 (LE, ) is warmer (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Mica and Titanium Dixoide (CI 77891), Phenyl Trimethicone, Talc, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Magnesium Stearate, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), Chromium Oxide Greens (CI 77288), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Daphne
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Laurel
Laurel is a smoky, medium-dark olive green with warm, brown undertones and a frosted finish. The color coverage was opaque, while the eyeshadow had a soft, blendable texture with a smidgen of dustiness that did not translate onto the lid nor was there fallout during application. It lasted nicely for eight hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Tom Ford Beauty Raw Jade (Right) (LE, ) is more shimmery, lighter (95% similar).
- Make Up For Ever Treasure (LE, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Isamaya Motor (PiP, ) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Anastasia Bronx (LE, $12.00) is less shimmery (95% similar).
- bareMinerals Eureka (LE, ) is brighter (90% similar).
- Make Up For Ever D320 Golden Khaki (DC, $21.00) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- Dior Jardin #3 (PiP, ) is darker (90% similar).
- MAC Fiction (DC, $17.00) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- Chanel Lumiere et Opulence #1 (LE, ) is less shimmery, cooler (90% similar).
- MAC In the Meadow #4 (LE, $21.00) is warmer (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Mica and Titanium Dixoide (CI 77891), Phenyl Trimethicone, Talc, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Magnesium Stearate, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), Chromium Oxide Greens (CI 77288), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Look Using this Product
Laurel
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Siren
Siren is a faded, deep bluish-gray with cool undertones and a satin sheen. The pigmentation was fantastic and covered my skin evenly and smoothly in a single layer. The texture was soft, smooth, and not at all dusty or powdery, but it was still soft and yielding that it was easy to apply and blend out on my lid. It stayed on well for eight hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Pat McGrath Deep Space (LE, $25.00) is less shimmery, cooler (95% similar).
- Pat McGrath La Vie en Noir (LE, $25.00) is less shimmery, darker (95% similar).
- Anastasia Claudia (LE, $12.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty White Suede #4 (LE, ) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- MAC Glitch in the Matrix (P, $17.00) is more shimmery, darker, brighter (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Dagger (PiP, $19.00) is more shimmery, cooler (90% similar).
- MAC Russian Blue (LE, $17.00) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Sephora Hematite (PiP, ) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- Chanel Douceur et Serenite #2 (LE, ) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Chanel Gris Exquis (LE, $29.50) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Mica and Titanium Dixoide (CI 77891), Phenyl Trimethicone, Talc, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Magnesium Stearate, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), Chromium Oxide Greens (CI 77288), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Siren
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Mona
Mona is a medium taupe-brown with warmer undertones and a matte finish. It had nearly opaque pigmentation with a smooth, velvety texture that was a touch powdery in the pan but adhered well to bare skin without sheering out too readily. It wore well for eight hours before starting to fade a bit on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- ColourPop Get Crackin' (LE, $4.50) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Becca Cognac (LE, ) is warmer (90% similar).
- Anastasia Lula (LE, $12.00) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- NARS Sophia (DC, $25.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- Sydney Grace Cortado (LE, $5.25) is lighter, warmer (90% similar).
- Danessa Myricks Exposed (P, $18.00) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- MAC Riffraff (LE, $17.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- Makeup Atelier Natural Brown #3 (P, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- ColourPop Americano (LE, $4.50) is darker (90% similar).
- LORAC Clay (PiP, $19.00) is lighter (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Talc, Mica, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Phenyl Trimethicone, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Magnesium Stearate, Silica, Nylon-12, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891), Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Look Using this Product
Mona
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Aria
Aria is a medium, orange-brown with warm undertones and a matte finish. It had opaque pigmentation with a soft, blendable texture that wasn’t too firmly nor too softly pressed in the pan. The color lasted for just over eight hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Anastasia Isabel (LE, $12.00) is darker (95% similar).
- Make Up For Ever S604 Teak (DC, $21.00) is more shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- LORAC Sepia (LE, $19.00) is more muted (90% similar).
- Too Faced Bunny Fu-Fu (LE, $16.00) is brighter (90% similar).
- MAC Brown Script (P, $17.00) is darker (90% similar).
- Anastasia Burnt Orange (PiP, $12.00) is warmer (85% similar).
- Make Up For Ever S706 Milk Toffee (DC, $21.00) is more shimmery, warmer (85% similar).
- Makeup Atelier Red Ochre #4 (P, ) is darker (85% similar).
- Sephora + Pantone Universe Chutney (LE, ) is darker (85% similar).
- KVD Beauty Rust (Contour) (PiP, ) is darker (85% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Talc, Mica, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Phenyl Trimethicone, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Magnesium Stearate, Silica, Nylon-12, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891), Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Look Using this Product
Aria
PiPPermanent in Palette.
D'Orsay
D’Orsay is a medium-dark bronze with warm undertones and a metallic sheen. It had opaque pigmentation with a soft, smooth texture that was almost cream-like, which helped it adhere well to bare skin and blend out easily along the edges without losing its intensity. It stayed on well for eight hours on me.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- MAC Golden Hours #1 (LE, $21.00) is warmer (95% similar).
- Pat McGrath Beyond Bronze 003 (LE, $25.00) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- ColourPop Rosebud (LE, $6.00) is more shimmery, lighter (95% similar).
- ColourPop Tatooine Glimmer (LE, $4.50) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (95% similar).
- Zoeva Subtle Blend (PiP, ) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- MAC Monaco-co (Enchanted Forest) (LE, $20.00) is more shimmery, lighter (95% similar).
- Cle de Peau Stellar Gaze #2 (PiP, ) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Sephora Vibrant (P, $10.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- MAC Bronze (P, $17.00) is darker (90% similar).
- Sydney Grace Amber (P, $6.25) is more shimmery, warmer (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Mica and Titanium Dixoide (CI 77891), Phenyl Trimethicone, Talc, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Magnesium Stearate, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), Chromium Oxide Greens (CI 77288), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Look Using this Product
D'Orsay
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Klimt
Klimt is a soft, orange-brown with warm undertones and a pearl finish. The eyeshadow had opaque pigmentation in a single layer, which applied evenly and smoothly to bare skin. The texture was slightly dusty in the pan but did not have any fallout issues during application. It wore well for seven and a half hours on me before it started to fade noticeably.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Stila Peace (PiP, ) is darker (95% similar).
- Dior Cuir Cannage #4 (PiP, ) is more muted (95% similar).
- LORAC Unattainable (PiP, $19.00) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- NARS Isolde #1 (DC, $25.00) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Too Faced Jingle All the Way Eyeshadow #3 (LE, $16.00) is darker (90% similar).
- Dior Rivage #3 (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
- MAC Sable Riche (LE, $17.00) is darker (90% similar).
- Viseart Marais (PiP, ) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- Sephora Stinger (LE, ) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Anastasia Kim (LE, $12.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Mica and Titanium Dixoide (CI 77891), Phenyl Trimethicone, Talc, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Magnesium Stearate, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), Chromium Oxide Greens (CI 77288), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Look Using this Product
Klimt
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Primavera
Primaverais a medium, plummy-brown with warm undertones and a frosted finish. The color payoff was nearly opaque in a single layer, and it applied evenly to bare skin without fallout nor did it sheer out too readily on my skin. The texture was soft, slightly dusty in the pan, but it blended out with little effort and stayed on well for eight hours before I noticed signs of wear.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- MAC Mythical (LE, $17.00) is brighter (95% similar).
- Anastasia Muse (LE, $12.00) is less shimmery, darker (95% similar).
- Tarte Fireside Chat (LE, ) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- L'Oreal Amber Rush (P, $7.99) is warmer (90% similar).
- MAC Gift Giver (LE, $17.00) is less shimmery, darker, cooler (90% similar).
- MAC Winter Pursuit (LE, $21.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- Smashbox XO, Vlada (LE, ) is more shimmery, cooler (90% similar).
- ColourPop Anthem (P, $4.50) is lighter, brighter (90% similar).
- Smashbox Oxidize (LE, ) is warmer (90% similar).
- Viseart Paramour (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Mica and Titanium Dixoide (CI 77891), Phenyl Trimethicone, Talc, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Magnesium Stearate, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), Chromium Oxide Greens (CI 77288), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
Look Using this Product
Primavera
PiPPermanent in Palette.
Frida
Frida is a deep, plummy brown with warm undertones and a pearl sheen. The color coverage was opaque in a single layer, while the texture was soft, smooth, and blendable without being too firmly nor too softly pressed in the pan. The eyeshadow applied well and stayed on nicely for eight hours.
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Chanel Affresco #8 (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
- Chanel Silver Pink (814) (P, $36.00) is darker (90% similar).
- NARS Vengeance (DC, $25.00) is cooler (90% similar).
- Bad Habit Ursa (PiP, ) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- MAC Her Cocoa #4 (LE, $17.00) is more shimmery, warmer (90% similar).
- LORAC Sequoia (LE, $19.00) is darker (90% similar).
- MAC Smokeluxe #3 (PiP, ) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- MAC Been There, Done That (LE, ) is less shimmery (90% similar).
- ColourPop Howdy (PiP, $4.50) is darker (90% similar).
- Guerlain Royal Jungle #1 (PiP, ) is more shimmery, lighter (90% similar).
Formula Overview
-
Bad Habit Beauty's eyeshadow palettes typically appear to be heavily inspired by other popular palettes, and I wanted to test several different palettes (that appear to dupe different brands) to see if the similarities are more with respect to colors, finishes, and/or formulations.
What I've noticed is that Bad Habit's formulas seem to be similar in the "type" but the ingredient lists often differ significantly, but what I mean by that is the formula isn't consistent between Bad Habit's palettes--some are much softer and more powdery, other times denser and more substantial, and it seems more linked to the original version of the palette (e.g. Anastasia's mattes are more powdery than Natasha Denona's). I think it would be more differentiating if the brand came up formulations that worked well and stuck with them throughout their palettes, as it would make the brand more reliable and consistent.
As it stands, the formulas vary wildly -- some mattes are pigmented and substantial, others are extremely powdery and sheerer; some shimmers are creamy and intense while others are softer and dustier. Same with the pigmentation; most shades have been pigmented but there has been variance. The wear has been between six and eight hours.
The quality of Bad Habit's take on a particular color scheme has varied for me from palette to palette; I think that the Artistry palette compared to the Mario palette was the brand at its highest, whereas Mystic (which appears most similar to Pat McGrath's Subliminal palette) missed the mark. Something I noticed across the palettes was that Bad Habit's shimmer particle size has been larger in almost all instances--they were less refined, less pearly, which sometimes was the "magic" in the original shade, I felt.
I have noticed that some of their inspired palettes have varied in undertone or depth slightly, but noticeable tweaks depend on the particular palette rather than seem to be embedded in the brand's philosophy. I think it would be interesting if the brand took some of the feedback that was out when the original palette was released and used that to improve upon it in certain ways. I did feel like this was reflected in their Arabesque palette (very similar to Soft Glam in color scheme) with En Pointe (which is most similar to Anastasia's Glistening), but it is much more orange-based and less golden (a complaint for Soft Glam was that Glistening was too close to Fairy, both golds).
Browse all of our Bad Habit Eyeshadow swatches.
Ingredients
Talc, Mica, Synthetic Fluorphlogopite, Phenyl Trimethicone, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Magnesium Stearate, Silica, Nylon-12, Dimethicone, Caprylyl Glycol, Phenoxyethanol. +/- May Contain: Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891), Iron Oxides (CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499), Ultramarine Blue (CI 77007), FD&C Red No.40 Al Lake (CI 16035).
Disclaimer: Ingredient lists are as available by the brand (or retailer) at the time of publishing. Please always check product packaging, if it exists, for the ingredient list applicable to the product you're purchasing, or the brand or retailer's website for the most up-to-date ingredient list.
What an amazing price with such good quality shadows! *___*
Yes, it’s very affordable!
I had never heard of this brand until your swatches and side-by-side looks went up but ever since then I’ve been watching every review I can find and every side-by-side comparison of the dupe to the “OG.” I’m mostly interested in Bad Habit’s Supernova, Solstice, Fantasia, and Divine palettes which are the dupes for (in order) Natasha Denona’s Lila, Sunset, Tropic, and Star palettes. Unfortunately I really can’t afford ND’s larger palettes and to now know I could possibly have a MUCH cheaper option for each palette… I’m ecstatic!
Also I believe the grade for Daphne is missing!
The grade should be showing now! Thank you for letting me know!
I have Supernova and Solstice and I honestly love them! ND palettes are forever out of my reach (Even if I was in a position to drop that much on a single palette, I don’t think I ever could) so I was very interested in them. I got them in a bundle and they are absolutely amazing. Are there better formulas out there? Sure, but the formula on these Bad Habit palette is impressive for the price and I will and have purchased more from the brand.
I like this one a lot and just wished they sold it on their web site, as I’m old school (and old) and don’t buy via apps. Dupes don’t bother me, especially in the case of the Mario palette, which is no longer available. I think of it like one singer doing a cover of a song previously released by someone else. Choices.
I hear ya, Sue – having to buy through the app is definitely the most annoying part about trying to buy from the brand!
I think I’ll wait until a good chunk of Bad Habit products are reviewed and make a single app purchase ?
Since I’m still kicking myself in the butt for not grabbing the Mario palette, I’ll definitely grab this one!
Hi Christine, will you be reviewing any of the other Bad Habit palettes? 🙂 I have Aphrodite, Athena and Retro Love and would love to see a comparison between them and the palettes they are based on if you do!
Thank you for the review request!
I like what you said about accessibility and privilege, and staying within budget. There are so many new makeup items coming out constantly, and the ticket price keeps getting higher and higher ($50 nail polishes, $50 lipsticks… $150 palettes!).
I can’t tell you how many palettes I’ve purchased, played with once or twice, and then cast them aside. It’s definitely not fiscally responsible. If I didn’t have a job or was still in school, there is no way I would be able to afford this stuff.
Because it’s back to school season, this just reminds me of the impulse to get a new box of crayons every school year. I don’t know if anyone else went through this struggle, but every single September I would insist on getting a new box of Crayola crayons, even though my box from the previous year was barely touched. We all do that, right?
Heck, even as an adult I bought one of those super expensive Prisma colored pencil sets with like 172 pencils or something. They look beautiful in the pencil holder/organize I bought for them, but they’re mostly untouched…. 10 years later.
Part of being creative is getting your hands on new stuff, but another part of creativity is trying to make something new with the materials you already have on hand!
The joy/beauty/art of makeup is accessibility. If art was only for people who could afford a $200 palette or $50 lipsticks we would miss out on so many talented artists out there! The best artists can do great work with sub par products.
At the same time, like you said, you do see a difference in quality. I love the Charlotte Tilbury shimmer eyeshadow I have because it seems very fine compared to the ABH shimmers.
I’m really rambling, but one last thought: the Natasha Denona shadows are not worth it. Some of their shimmers are amazing, but some of their glitter infused shadows are pure garbage. I hate that they charge $50 for a 5 pan palette or $220 for the big palettes.
There has been a surge in luxury cosmetics, too – more $100+ palettes – and the part that surprised me was that some of them sold out. Definitely didn’t expect that!
I find that I enjoy Natasha Denona’s eyeshadows more now than before! I don’t think any palette is “worth it” for $200+ (like I just don’t think you buy it and rationalize it as a value, IMO).
Wow – what great value and some gorgeous shades. I wish this were available where I am…sadly, it’s not.
I wonder if they will ever expand their distribution beyond the US (I think it’s just US now).
I really appreciate you reviewing these. Bad Habit is almost impossible to get in Australia as it’s sold via the US app-only but I managed to get my hands on a few from friends and their quality does vary wildly. The Bad Habit dupes for Modern Renaissance and Naked Heat were disappointing but the Aphrodite and Athena (ala Rose Gold and Desert Dusk) were so good I ended up destashing the originals. And I could never have afforded Natasha Denona palettes at Australian mark-ups, but the Solstice and Supernova are just really high-quality palettes. I keep my eBay ‘Bad Habit’ search on, because you never know.
Hey Rabbit,
Glad I could help! I think my jaw would drop at the mark-up on ND in Australia given what I’ve seen for other brands, LOL. Do you feel that the Rose Gold/Desert Dusk dupes were better than the originals (since Huda’s were not perfect)? I believe I own most of the palettes Bad Habit has released, but I haven’t tested or even photographed all of them (there are a lot). I found the Bad Habit version of ABH’s Soft Glam to be sooo powdery that I couldn’t believe they’d make a more powdery matte than ABH already is.
Yes, I did think the Bad Habit dupes were better than HUDA’s originals – the formula was less patchy and the glitter shades were far easier to use. I don’t use a *lot* of eyeshadow – I’m more of the ‘eyelashes and lips’ thing – eg, I knew I would never wear the colours in, say, Subculture much, but companies like Bad Habit let me a least give them a try. (And if I absolutely loved a Bad Habit palette I would probably end up saving up for the original inspiration.
RE ND prices – yeah, her Star palette retailed at $ AUD 245 here, which is about $ US 180. Which is why I don’t mind paying $ AUD 50 for the Bad Habit dupe !
I will definitely look to try one of those next then! That’s more in the vein of where I think a company could knock it out of the park – making theirs better/improved, so I’ll be curious to try them for myself.
Thanks, Rabbit!
Personally I’m against blatant copy-cat palettes. While I understand your argument for accessibility, I feel like it’s on par with arguing that pirated music or movies is about accessibility and not about someone else making a quick buck off of someone else’s idea/creation.
With music/movies, there do seem to be legal ways (particularly nowadays) that reduce the barrier to entry and increase accessibility there in a way that gives you the “real thing” without any compromise. I think in makeup that is harder to translate in the same way, but there are definitely budget-friendly brands that create products from the ground up that one can buy from. What was most curious about Bad Habit was that there was a very strong surge of positive reviews and a huge influx in requests of people trying to compare swatches, and often, brands that more obviously dupe have more obvious differences in quality, so it’s been interesting to see how reality lives up to the hype.
I agree with you, Christine. There is a huge difference between imitation and outright counterfeit. You can’t really “imitate” a movie, but a counterfeit is directly stealing. There are plenty of counterfeit cosmetics out there that package with the intention of stealing. That is illegal. Because imitators use their own name, they are providing products that are inspired by others that prove to be popular. You KNOW you are not buying the original. Unfortunately, the word “dupe” has come to apply to both.
Based on how little protection there is given to fashion/beauty in the US, it’s protection seems to be more limited to things like clasps or mechanisms (say on a purse) vs. color. There’s an online site, Colour Lovers, that has color palettes and they have a note that you can’t copyright the color palette but you can copyright the physical image of them together – but if someone just took the colors and interpreted it into something else, there’s nothing wrong with that. The lack of cases against brands like Makeup Revolution, which has been around for longer, suggests that brands have weighed pros/cons of a suit and have opted not to sue, even if they could, or else the case might not be that strong based on current laws in the US. I know some EU countries have stronger protections within fashion. I think we see this type of duping within fashion more often.
But I would have loved to see Bad Habit incorporate their own concepts alongside some of their dupes so that there was a mix!
I think the fact that the ABH Mario palette is no longer available makes this a bit different than a blatant copy cat product simply because there are probably lots of people who weren’t able to get the original or, like, me, they own it but wonder what they’ll do once they start finishing the products in it. And let’s face it – when you look at what’s out there in colour cosmetics, how much is truly “original” (hence the abundance of dupes for almost anything Christine reviews here on her site – you’d be hard pressed to find a product for which there aren’t multiple dupes floating around)
I still remain super surprised that ABH never released singles of some of the Mario palette shades… absolutely feels like a missed opportunity.
I absolutely agree. I’m surprised they didn’t make that palette permanent, to be honest, or repromote it. I wonder if it has to do with licensing agreements, the use of real names of real people, etc. (though Bronx – heck, you’d think anyone would be free to use that name!)
Yeah, I figure they can’t re-release in full because of licensing but I’m not sure about making singles? Like Becca eventually made Champagne Pop permanent. I’m sure there’s a way… But ABH doesn’t seem to add *that* many singles either, and they could have surely added a range of neutral satin/pearl shades that may have been reminiscent of the theory/concept.
You are so talented and look stunning! Go girl
Thank you!
Yes Christine, the blending in your eye look is amazing!
I really hope temptalia can stop feature any bad habit or other alike products because they are stealing other brand’s idea. We have a lot of ‘budget friendly’ brands that are creative.
Thank you for your feedback!
I know some people don’t like dupe palettes. But keep in mind that while words and other intellectual property can be copyrighted, colors or a collection of colors cannot. If that were so, only one company could produce a certain style of red shirt, blue jeans, and so on. Can you IMAGINE if colors were copyrighted? Actually that would make an interesting dystopian scifi story.
I like originality too, but also cringe when companies charge $125 for something that can be duped for a tenth of the price. You know all you’re paying for in the first case is the name on the box.
LOL! From the minds of beauty lovers, a dystopian sci-fi novel on when color can be copyrighted!
I think it’s fantastic to support the brands that resonate with you, whether that’s the original creator or a brand that produces more ethically or has diverse shade ranges, etc. I personally would likely purchase the original (unless it was an issue of quality!) because I have the luxury of being able to afford to do so. If my beauty budget was $100 a year, I can’t say I wouldn’t opt for an affordable dupe – I might opt to purchase say, ColourPop instead, but looking at Subculture, it was definitely a color scheme that wasn’t saturating the market and yet the quality was questionable, the brand’s response was subpar, etc. so does it make sense to buy the original? Maybe a dupe would be better/at least “worth” the effort since they would be cheaper!
But there are instances where I’ve bought the Amazon Basics version instead of whatever name-brand item – those are effectively dupes/nearly exactly the same.
Ooh please write up a post on your favorite Amazon Basics items! ?
Gosh, I don’t know that I have enough to write a post on, but I’ll think about it! Maybe Amazon favorites 🙂
Yes! And don’t get me wrong, I often buy original palettes after reading positive reviews instead of waiting for a cheaper dupe.
p.s. You get right on that scifi novel in a world where colors are copyrighted, eh? 😉
The name means everything! original idea, reliable quality, better customer service etc. which all need to be paid.
I am not saying affordable companies need to invent colors that high-end have not. I am saying they can make identical product themselves.
Imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery – so if a brand’s eeyeshadow palette is really good, then other brands will copy it. Look at how many versions there are of Naked 1?
It’s no big deal for another brand to bring out a similar dupe of your own, especially if the original is no longer available.
To the palette itself: I really like it and it is of excellent quality in the most part. Some brands charge triple the price for this one and still have some C’s, D’s and F’s.
And I am really glad that this one is an affordable option too – on the eye you cannot tell whether its ABH or Bad Habit. Currently ABH’s palettes, at Sephora Australia, retail for $75 and even on ebay, they are double the price + shipping.
Hopefully this brand will come to Australia.
Gorgeous eye look Christine.
I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of this particular palette as I was quite unsure going into trying the brand out how it was all going to pan out…
Hey Christine! I sincerely appreciate this review! As the owner of several Bad Habit palettes (mostly the ND and Huda dupes), I was thrilled to see you talk about this brand! Thank you for addressing the issue of accessibility, it’s important to recognize that while we may want all the expensive makeup, at the end of the day some of us have families to feed but still want to look good doing it. Thanks again, I really value you’re reviews!
No problem, Shawne! Are you happy with your Bad Habit palettes?
I purchased two of their palettes and they are very nice for the price.
Which two do you have, Mo?
Your eye look is gorgeous! Stunning. I agree with everything you wrote about dupes. I had zero intention of ever buying ND Lila, but I did buy the BH Supernova. While this probably doesn’t mean all that much…ND was never getting my coin. Lol The dupe didn’t “take away” a customer. I see it as being more comparable to fashion in that sense. I’m not ever going to have the ability to buy designer clothes and shoes, but I’m still going to buy items that are obviously made to look like them.
Yeah, more blatant duping/copying seems more present in fashion, and the differential between designer prices and fashion dupes is staggering, so I wonder if it’s that differential that changes the general sentiment (it just seems more accepted in fashion, though everything has pros/cons, as fast fashion has had some unintended consequences as well can have issues with things like labor).
I love your lip! What are you wearing in this look?
https://www.temptalia.com/look/a-warm-neutral-eye-with-bad-habit-artistry-palette/
I have several Bad Habit palettes, and am very happy with them. The problem with some more expensive palettes is that you may love some of the colors, but not others…and they go unused…and that is a waste of money. I guess that is how I rationalize it. I also love to build my own palettes. That way I get what I want.
Which ones do you have, April?
Growing up in academia I’m certainly in a position to be against plagiarism in any shape or form, and therefore, I would never ever touch a dupe palette. Concepts are hard to come up with and I would rather pay for the hard work if the quality deserves my coins as well. The original designer should be adequately rewarded.
I am genuinely curious if there’s a distinction, to you, between a makeup palette and buying the generic version of a cereal or shopping at brands like Zara or Topshop? They’re all different industries and likely have their own regulations/differences/characteristics (food is interesting in particular), but as I read through comments this morning, I started thinking a little more about what is seen in other consumer products.
I am merely interested in teasing out different sides of the argument! I can absolutely see the argument for/against and have no problems at all with however one lands on it so long as we can all engage in respectful discussion 🙂
I’m torn on this issue and flip flop back and forth but sympathize with both sides. The issue I have is a company that solely produces knock-offs vs. drugstore brands that only give a nod to high-end makeup. Also we have to remember that this goes both ways. Large powerful companies steal from small, unknown artist frequently. One of most infamous cases was Victoria Secret (not artistry, more invention) and the 100 ways bra. So today I’m against it, but I’m definitely open to a strong persuasive argument to change my mind. 🙂
It is interesting about how it is perceived in makeup, as I think more obvious dupe attempts happen more often in fashion, but I was just responding to another reader and thinking about technology – like USB wall chargers and and things of that nature that I’ve certainly bought off-brand. There are all the obvious generic vs name-brand options at grocery stores (and most products require time and energy, some level of design and creativity).
Like you, I see both sides, and I do think there’s a distinction between brands that dupe here and there but have some of their own ideas and concepts, like Wet ‘n’ Wild or ColourPop. I didn’t follow Makeup Revolution’s trajectory so much so I don’t recall how much of what they started with was dupes vs. anything that was more “their own.”
There are brands who have infringed on my copyright, who I don’t cover on the blog, but I would never expect anyone else to stop supporting or purchasing from them because of it. An example would be e.l.f. who repeatedly did so and also used my images (of my actual eye) to sell their products (that weren’t used in the look) years ago – and yet I would never tell someone not to purchase from the brand because of how affordable they are.
While I also cringe at the idea of deliberate dupes, I’m with you on the idea that it can be justified by improving the formula, or tweaking the color palette. It should always be better than the original (and in this particular example, larger shimmer particle size negates that). I do buy from indie brands that very deliberately dupe, and will even outright name the product they’re duping (e.g. Silk Naturals), but they also tend to do these deliberate dupes to produce a product everyone loves while removing problematic ingredients found in the originals or to make them vegan or cruelty-free. I won’t (deliberately) buy a dupe that’s no better, just cheaper; if I like it enough to be interested, I get the original.
I understand the idea that less-pricey versions help out those who have limited finances, but I would argue that’s not enough to justify it (I’m speaking of the brand’s efforts, not whether or not a consumer should refrain from buying something that’s a deliberate dupe).
I am definitely more amenable to the idea of a brand that says, “Hmm, this is popular, how can we make it even better?” Like ABH eyeshadows can be powdery, so why are they copying powderiness when they could come up with a matte formula they stand by and a shimmer formula they stand by? Some of ND’s eyeshadows have had glitter-bomb eyeshadows so maybe dialing back some of the glitter and making them easier to work with would make it more interesting.
I wonder if the shimmers are larger because finer is more expensive as an ingredient or because their demographic may want more shine/sparkle/shimmer or you know, for neither reason at all.
While I embrace the benefits of dupes and of more affordable options, I am not in favor of blatantly copying ideas & concepts. I mentioned this about Bad Habit Arabesque vs ABH Soft Glam and same is valid for Artistry. I won’t reproduce here my previous comments, just a few ideas. A finite product involves a design & concept, selection of colours, layout, shape of the pans, shape of the palette as a whole etc., all objective elements that can be proven and seen. The fact that another company, Bad Habit, took the exact same concept, without any creative effort and just put a different front cover and a name won’t stand in a court of law in Canada if the other brand (the creator) would decide to sue them, because it’s the entire creative and conceptual process that is imitated/reproduced. It’s like someone will reproduce the categories of your website, structure & system of reviews, but will use different colours and font. Hard work, creativity and originality need to be protected. I have nothing against affordable products as long as they put some conceptual & creative effort into it. There are so many affordable brands doing that. But just to take someone else’s ideas and efforts… that does not stand an objective and legal scrutiny, imho. It’s much more than an ethics issue. Bad Habit could have taken some of the colours and add some new; could have come up with a different layout, background, pan shape etc.
Thank you for reviewing this!! I’ve had my eye on this, and many other dupe palettes, for awhile but I really wanted to see a review before ordering an unknown product.
Having passed up on the ABH Mario palette while it was available, this would not be a bad way to *perhaps* obtain something quite close.
However, the same internal argument I had with myself then has cropped up again : “Do I even actually need this? Do I not presently have similar enough shades within my stash?” VS. “You will never actually go hunt all those shades down to do a look, and you know it! C’mon now, these are all in one place.”
I absolutely agree with you about dupes. I for one, waited too long to buy the original Huda Beauty Rose Gold palette and when I saw the Aphrodite dupe, I grabbed it since the Rose Gold was discontinued, which later turned out not to be the case. I couldn’t compare them to each other but was happy with the dupe and it was nice to see people posting looks with the dupe saying they were happy someone made an affordable version. There is a fine line between inspiration and theft but there is also plenty of room for drugstore priced items that give a high end look.
I think there would be only a minority group that would think that there isn’t room for more affordable products that can replicate the look, but there’s definitely debate over how far is too far (or, perhaps, how obvious is too obvious).
I do think that the Artistry palette is an interesting one to discuss, since the palette it dupes came out awhile ago, was LE (and sold out if I remember correctly!), and the brand didn’t bring it back nor did they release singles of any of the shades. The latter still surprises me!
Temptalia, I so appreciate your stance on dupe palettes from a privilege perspective, and I totally agree. There is always room for makeup at various price points, and you should have choices to make whatever consumer choice you can to stay within your budget. No one cares once it’s on the face, and people holding “originals” to a higher standard is privilege at the highest level. On a completely unrelated note, I had no idea you were a lawyer (as am I) until a few weeks ago, and I’ve referred to your blog for years for swatches and reviews before buying! I always appreciated the no-nonsense, to the point reviews!!
Hey Farheen!
I graduated law school but didn’t actually become a lawyer as I had decided to do the blog full-time about a year before I actually graduated! 🙂 It’s more my backup plan now!
I’ve been very curious about some of the Bad Habit palettes, as well as some other brands sold on Shop Hush. However, I’ve also had that internal struggle of morality in some cases (and honestly in some cases more of a struggle of being a brand snob). I do think it’s better to buy from these dupe brands rather than the counterfeit products people try to buy on eBay, both from a moral and safety perspective. I also think your argument about dupes being available in almost every industry without anyone batting an eye is so interesting. You’re right. I’ve never thought twice about buying the store brand cereal even though it’s a blatant ripoff of the name brand. The duping of fashion reminds me of the scene in The Devil Wears Prada where Meryl Streep goes off on Anne Hathaway about the color of her sweater being a copy of something from the high fashion world (can’t remember all the details because it’s been years since I saw the movie). Anyway, it’s a very interesting and relevant discussion.
I only started thinking about “dupes” in non-beauty after reading through and responding to comments in this post, and I was… surprised at how prevalent it is in everyday life to some degree. I’m just, obviously, less knowledgeable about it in other industries other than as a consumer/buyer. I agree that there are some interesting points being made throughout the comments that are all worth thinking about.
You bring up a good point that good dupes that seem visually close to what they’re duping (but aren’t counterfeit) will make counterfeits less palatable – I don’t think most people are married to the brand so much as the color scheme/trend. Unlike fashion, makeup is usually stowed away in bags and at home. Nobody knows you’re wearing Chanel or Tom Ford on the eyes.
I think your position on Bad Habit is really wonderful and positive! I agree that it makes them more accessible. Yes, sometimes you want to splurge on something expensive ( I had to have the Norvina palette, it was perfect to me.) but there’s also times when you want a palette, but not so bad that you want to drop $50-100 on one! Making dupes of Natasha Denona and Pat McGrath available to people that otherwise wouldn’t want to or able to spend so much is amazing.
Yes, it’s questionable, I’m an artist and I understand its horrific if someone steals your art. But then in certain instances, like consumable products, there’s a need for cheaper dupes. For instance, I need to drink Lactaid Lactose Free milk, it’s very expensive, but Walmart has their own Lactose Free milk they sell which is essentially a “dupe”. It makes it a price I can feel ok paying.
What I really wanted to say was how much I thought your view was amazing and insightful. I feel like there is a place for dupe palettes, and I understand their questionable nature but you nailed it on the accessibility of them. It’s a kind of democratizing of a trend or style. Just really cool!
Thanks, Mariah! 🙂 Our choices can’t always be “perfect” as reality is more like a balancing act of prioritizing what is or isn’t more important, what is better on balance. I create content, too, so I can definitely understand why a creator/brand would be frustrated (I wouldn’t be at all bothered if one of the brand owners ranted and raved to their friends/family about it!). It’s important to discuss and look at the different sides of the argument so that we can make the choices that feel right to us.