A FEMAIL makeup artist and hairstylist has identified a series of budget-friendly beauty products she says match or exceed the performance of long-standing luxury favourites, offering consumers lower-cost alternatives as household budgets tighten in 2025.

Elise Wilson, who writes the Polished column for FEMAIL, tested a range of mass-market products against premium counterparts — from foundations and mascaras to hairdryers and fragrances — and reported comparable wear, finish and technology in many cases. Wilson framed her findings against rising living costs, saying many shoppers no longer see pricey packaging as justification for higher prices.

Wilson compared Maybelline’s Fit Me Matte + Poreless foundation at about $12.99 to Giorgio Armani’s Luminous Silk, a longtime luxury favourite priced around $120, and concluded the drugstore formula delivered a soft, radiant finish with long wear. For mascara, she cited Maybelline New York’s Sky High ($12.99) as delivering similar volume and length to Hourglass’ Unlocked Instant Extensions Mascara ($57), noting the drugstore product’s tubing technology helped it resist flaking.

On setting sprays, Wilson recommended Australis Makeup Finishing Spritz ($9.97) over Urban Decay’s All Nighter ($66), saying the Australis product offered comparable hold and mist performance. She also noted Urban Decay’s All Nighter was reformulated in July 2025 and said the new version no longer includes Skindinavia’s cooling technology that was present in earlier formulations.

Other product comparisons in Wilson’s list included Barry M’s Lip Rehab Tinted Lip Mask ($16.95) versus Summer Fridays’ Lip Butter Balms ($41); MCoBeauty’s Flawless Glow Luminous Skin Filter ($17.49) against Charlotte Tilbury’s Hollywood Flawless Filter ($65); and Milani’s Baked Blush in Dolce Pink ($15.39) against Nars’ iconic Orgasm blush ($62). In each case she reported similar shades, finishes or staying power for a fraction of the price.

Wilson also highlighted larger-ticket items where she found value. The Laifen SE 2 hairdryer, priced at about $249, was judged a convincing alternative to the Dyson Supersonic ($499), with Wilson noting Laifen’s lightweight feel and salon-style results. She cited the brand’s global traction, saying Laifen has sold more than 15 million units worldwide, and suggested it can deliver salon-quality results without the highest-end price. For body lotions, she pointed to Vaseline’s Gluta-Hya Pro-Age Restore ($5.99) as a lower-cost alternative to Clarins Dynamisante ($72). For fragrance, The Perfume Oil Company’s roll-on oil “Sass” ($39.95) was presented as a lower-priced scent option reminiscent of YSL’s Black Opium eau de parfum ($215).

Wilson framed the recommendations as practical choices for consumers balancing self-care with other financial priorities such as housing and leisure. She acknowledged that luxury products retain an appeal for packaging, scent profiles or the experience of indulgence, but wrote that dupes can allow people to maintain a beauty routine without the same expense.

Several of the brands Wilson cited are widely discussed on social media platforms such as TikTok, where comparisons and product “dupe” videos have influenced shopping behaviours. Wilson pointed to Fit Me’s early popularity on social platforms and to MCoBeauty and Laifen gaining attention for affordable glow and beauty-tech performance, respectively.

Wilson stated the pieces reflect her personal testing and opinions and that the content was not sponsored or endorsed by the brands mentioned. Her article appears amid broader consumer shifts in 2025 toward value-driven purchases across apparel, beauty and personal care as households contend with higher living costs.

Retail analysts say the beauty market has long accommodated a broad range of price points, with prestige brands often commanding loyalty for formulation, packaging and brand identity while mass-market brands compete by increasing quality and innovation. The trend toward affordable alternatives that deliver comparable results underscores the growing importance of performance and value to many shoppers.

Wilson’s list of alternatives offers specific price comparisons and product observations intended to guide readers seeking lower-cost options without sacrificing results. Her column recommends shoppers test shades and formulas where possible, as finish and wear can vary by skin type and individual preference.

The article concludes that while luxury beauty products retain their place for some consumers, accessible alternatives increasingly close the performance gap — a development likely to resonate with budget-conscious shoppers through 2025 and beyond.

The views in Wilson’s column are her own and do not reflect those of the brands mentioned.