MAC x Nicopanda Primapanda Full Face Kit Review, Photos, Swatches
Primapanda
MAC Primapanda Nicopanda Full Face Kit ($40.00 for 0.40 oz.) makes one wonder if brands even bother to test their own products prior to releasing them to consumers. Every single product in the palette fell below what one would look for in a mid-end product with two shades being absolutely atrocious. Eyeshadow primer did not alleviate the overall application issues and only improved wear by a few hours but by no means long enough to make it through even an eight-hour day.
Plum Sparkle
Plum Sparkle is medium-dark plum with cool undertones and flecks of silver sparkle over a matte finish. It had good pigmentation that was buildable to full coverage with two layers. The texture was drier and dusty with a slight graininess to the touch. It applied somewhat unevenly but could be blended out with some effort. It wore well for eight hours on me.
Top Dupes
- Tom Ford Beauty Gratuitous (P, $60.00) is warmer (95% similar).
- IT Cosmetics Magical in Mauve (P, $24.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- MAC Hot Nights (LE, $24.00) is darker (85% similar).
- Stila Berry Shimmer (LE, ) is more shimmery, lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- NARS Candid (LE, $30.00) is lighter, warmer (85% similar).
- MAC Wrapped Candy (P, $27.00) is more shimmery, warmer (85% similar).
- Smashbox Bitten (LE, ) is lighter (90% similar).
- NARS Ferocious (LE, $30.00) is more shimmery, warmer (85% similar).
- More dupes -- click to see the full list!
Formula Overview
$24.00/0.21 oz. - $114.29 Per Ounce
Per the brand, the formula is supposed to "provide fantastic colour with ease and consistency" that "applies evenly, adheres lightly to skin." There are five distinct finishes within the range: Frost ("iridescent, lightly shimmering color"), Matte ("flat, matte finish... builds well"), Satin ("adds subtle highlights to the skin"), Sheertone ("sheer-on micro-refined powder ... that goes on faint"), and Sheertone Shimmer ("just enough shimmer to make light dance on your cheeks"). Their permanent blushes are available in compact form as well as pan-only (the latter will be cheaper).
The following overview has been updated to reflect the most current iteration of the brand's permanent range (whether or not there's been any official change) as I repurchased the majority of the permanent shades as of June 2018. I make a point to say that because I felt that the textures of several shades, particularly the frost finish shades, was noticeably different; they were much smoother and had more slip but were less shimmery/frosted (on average) and seemed to be a bit weaker in pigmentation (but still buildable). Some of the mattes felt like I've encountered in the past (a little drier, pigmented, and fairly blendable), while some felt more velvety and finely-milled.
MAC has a solid blush range but some shades are harder than others to blend out or diffuse, and as it does for most formulas (from any brand), it really comes down to some shades falling shy of expectations. The matte finish had a tendency to darken on my skin within five minutes of application; for most shades, I would recommend applying over a powdered face and/or avoiding applying on still-drying complexion products to make blending the easiest. The matte shades seemed to be semi-opaque to opaque, buildable, and long-wearing (about eight hours).
Only a few of the shades in the permanent range seemed to be particularly frosted/metallic on the skin; most shades that had shimmer appeared more softly luminous or pearlescent on the skin to the point where there was little sheen/reflection captured by my camera (I did a double take for a few and re-did swatches only to find the same finish captured yet again!). The Sheertone Shimmer performed most consistently with this: very subtle sheen, more "my skin but better" with having a slightly more noticeable sheen than matte. There were a few shades that had a strong sheen on the skin (like Peachykeen), though. The Frost finish just seemed to have stronger, larger shimmer in it, but the effect on the skin ranged being subtle to moderate. The same was true with Satin--some were more satin-like and some seemed more like a Frost (like Modern Mandarin).
Most shades were blendable, while pigmentation varied from sheer to opaque depending on the shade, but most had decent, builable coverage. The textures were firmer than the average powder blush of current times, but they don't have excess product kicked up in the pan at all. The wear ranged between seven and nine hours with deeper, intense mattes (like Fever or Film Noir) lasted longer.
Browse all of our MAC Powder Blush swatches.
Ingredients
TALC, OCTYLDODECYL STEAROYL STEARATE, ZINC STEARATE, ISOSTEARYL NEOPENTANOATE, TOCOPHERYL ACETATE, CAPRYLYL GLYCOL, HEXYLENE GLYCOL, PHENOXYETHANOL. MAY CONTAIN: SILICA, MICA, TITANIUM DIOXIDE (CI 77891), IRON OXIDES (CI 77491, CI 77492, CI 77499), BISMUTH OXYCHLORIDE (CI 77163), BLUE 1 LAKE (CI 42090), CARMINE (CI 75470), CHROMIUM HYDROXIDE GREEN (CI 77289), CHROMIUM OXIDE GREENS (CI 77288), FERRIC FERROCYANIDE (CI 77510), MANGANESE VIOLET (CI 77742), RED 6 (CI 15850), RED 6 LAKE (CI 15850), RED 7 LAKE (CI 15850), RED 28 LAKE (CI 45410), RED 30 LAKE (CI 73360), ULTRAMARINES (CI 77007), YELLOW 5 LAKE (CI 19140), YELLOW 6 LAKE (CI 15985).
Midas
Midas is a light-medium peach with warm undertones and flecks of copper micro-glitter. It was sheer, dry, dusty, and applied patchy, even over primer with a dampened brush. It did not last longer than two hours on me.
Top Dupes
- Wet 'n' Wild Stop Ruffling My Feathers #2 (LE, ) is less shimmery, cooler (90% similar).
- Zoeva Distinct Experience (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
- Tom Ford Beauty Azure Sun (Eye Color) (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
- BH Cosmetics Foil Eyes #15 (PiP, ) is warmer (90% similar).
- NARS Singapore #1 (PiP, $19.00) (90% similar).
- MAC Gleam (P, $17.00) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- Buxom Champagne Buzz (P, $12.00) is darker (90% similar).
- Colour Pop The Cancer (LE, $5.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- Charlotte Tilbury Seductive Beauty (Brighten) (LE, ) is cooler (90% similar).
- Tarte Heat Wave (LE, ) is darker (90% similar).
- More dupes -- click to see the full list!
Freakshow
Freakshow is a pale lavender with subtle, warm undertones and a mostly matte finish. It had sheer coverage with a drier, more powdery texture that was prone to kicking up excess in the pan, not sticking well to bare skin, and disappeared from my lids within an hour of wear.
Top Dupes
- LORAC Lilac (LE, $19.00) is lighter (95% similar).
- Urban Decay Discreet (LE, $19.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- bareMinerals Velvet Lavender (LE, $14.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- Viseart Cool Mattes 2 #8 (PiP, ) is darker (85% similar).
- MAC She's a Machine (LE, $17.00) is lighter, brighter (85% similar).
- Too Faced Lavender Cake (LE, $16.00) is lighter, cooler (85% similar).
- NARS Charade II (PiP, $19.00) is darker, warmer (85% similar).
- Lancome Rich History (LE, $19.00) is darker (85% similar).
- Marc Jacobs Beauty Violet Hour (LE, ) is darker, warmer (80% similar).
- IT Cosmetics Romance (P, ) is darker, warmer (80% similar).
- More dupes -- click to see the full list!
BLK
BLK is a deep brown with neutral-to-cool undertones and a satin finish. The texture was slightly dusty and more prone to fallout during application if I wasn’t very careful to pat it on. It had good pigmentation that blended out fairly easily. This shade lasted for seven and a half hours.
Top Dupes
- Dior Feel #5 (PiP, ) is warmer (95% similar).
- Natasha Denona Layla (140M) (PiP, $29.00) is lighter, brighter (95% similar).
- Colour Pop Played Out (LE, $5.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- Surratt Beauty Chocolate Noir (P, $20.00) is warmer (90% similar).
- Colour Pop Mousse (LE, $5.00) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- The Estee Edit Burn (LE, ) is more shimmery, brighter (90% similar).
- Smashbox Darkhorse (PiP, ) is less shimmery (90% similar).
- MAC Smut (P, $17.00) is lighter (90% similar).
- Colour Pop Prism (LE, $5.00) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Chanel City Lights #3 (LE, ) is more shimmery, brighter (90% similar).
- More dupes -- click to see the full list!
Pout
Pout is a soft, light-medium lavender with subtle, warm pink undertones and a satin finish. It had medium coverage, which wasn’t buildable, and a dry, thin texture that was dusty and prone to fading and sheering out. It applied with more promise than the other two horrendous shades in the palette, but it ended up just as much of a disappointment as it wore poorly. The color had faded and disappeared on my lid within two hours of wear.
Top Dupes
- MAC Fizzy Rose (LE, $17.00) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- Make Up For Ever S900 Marshmallow (DC, $21.00) is lighter, brighter (90% similar).
- MAC Style & Influence (LE, ) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- Viseart Cool Mattes 2 #4 (PiP, ) is lighter, cooler (85% similar).
- MAC Envisioning Pink (LE, $17.00) is darker, warmer (85% similar).
- More dupes -- click to see the full list!
This is painful to read (and to watch). So disappointed by MAC. I wonder though about the designers/creative directors that collaborate with MAC and that put their name on a product. Don’t they have a saying in the production or they just take the money and that’s it.
Thank you Christine for taking the time to review this collection!
I had always the same questions, for this kind of collaborations with such bad quality…
So you liked it, then?
It’s a bummer; both Nicopanda palettes have color combinations that really appeal to me. But… come on, guys.
Yikes! This is not good at all. I predict that this set in particular is going to be very expensive here in Australia. I am running away from this set.
Having just said how much I love lavender and purple shadows when looking at the ColourPop release I can comfortably say that I won’t be picking this up or anything else from this collection. It is beyond understanding how MAC can continue to push through these releases with such horrible products. I guess there are many who will purchase just for the packaging or to support the collaborator but all that does is perpetuate MAC’s pushing through these terrible products. I could tell from swatches this wasn’t going to be good but didn’t expect quite this terrible.
Money saved!
Good grief MAC! Stop it with the exquisitely cute or cool outside packaging and pure 💩 inside!!!
This color story here is so pretty, that it makes the sense of disappointment so much more acutely painful.
This is beyond bad! I personally don’t like the packaging but realize many people think it’s cute; still, it’s an example of MAC putting more thought into packaging and promo than into quality cosmetic products. I rarely purchase LE or collab products from them any more and the few that I do are generally repromotes of popular (read “good quality”) products from the past.
This palette actually had a lovely colour scheme, so it is such a shame that MAC managed to ruin it by putting in poor quality shadows. How can a brand treat its loyal customers this way?
I love pandas, so I was tempted to grab a few things from this collection. But, I decided to wait for your reviews in light of the subpar Jeremy Scott release. This is such a disappointment – cute packaging doesn’t make up for horrible quality product, especially at a MAC price point. Thank you for helping me save a few bucks.
I’m glad that we have you…
Stunning colors (I really wanted 2 palettes of this collection), but with this quality I’ll skip both. And of course they’ll say that cool tones don’t sell!!! Just give us good quality cool toned eyeshadows!!!
It’s really sad that I honestly just expect MAC releases to be bad now… I just assume it will be bad and am surprised if they perform above a C. I used to love MAC, but it has just gotten sad how bad these special releases usually are.
Totally agree! I always expect them to be either terrible or sub-par and that’s really sad.
Sad that this is what the industry has come to.
It’s more important to SELL LOTS of makeup,
then to MAKE GOOD makeup.