Concealer creasing comparison 2.0 – Collection 2000 vs MAC

Affiliate Disclosure: I receive a small commission for purchases made via affiliate links.
How to cite: Wong M. Concealer creasing comparison 2.0 – Collection 2000 vs MAC. Lab Muffin Beauty Science. February 25, 2014. Accessed December 22, 2023.

After my original concealer creasing comparison here, I did some digging around to see if there were other concealers that could compare to MAC Pro Longwear. I’ve had a terrible run with MAC breaking me out (and my skin is pretty hardy), so I wanted to try my luck with other brands. I also disliked the packaging of MAC Pro Longwear concealer. One product that came up a lot was Collection 2000 Lasting Perfection concealer. I ordered it off eBay and tested it under my eyes; satisfied that it seemed comparable to Mac Pro Longwear, I put it to the creasing test.

Here are the three concealers:

MAC Pro Longwear in NC20 (borrowed from my sister again) – this comes in a pump bottle, and I’ve found that I don’t need a full pump to cover both undereye areas. It’s by far the most difficult packaging to use, and it takes a while to master the half-pump. The container is also glass, which for butterfingers me, with my tiled bathroom floor, is just an accident waiting to happen.

Collection 2000 Lasting Perfection in Light – this UK drugstore concealer comes in a screw-top flexible tube with a doe-foot applicator, and annoyingly, the printing rubs off the tube very very easily, making it look battered in no time. The applicator deposits way more than enough product on the skin – it’s more of a dot-and-blend procedure. There are only 4 shades available.

MAC Select Cover-Up in NW25 – this was my first undereye concealer, and comes in a squeezy plastic tube with a crimped end and a tiny (< 1 mm) hole for dispensing product.

Creasing comparison

Just like last time, I applied the concealer to the entire length of each (lightly oiled) finger, using a clean finger on the other hand to dab and blend it in. I dusted Mary Kay translucent powder on the area around the bottom knuckle, and left the top knuckle crease unpowdered. After 15 minutes, I took the Before photo. After another 1 hour and 15 minutes of gently clenching and unclenching my entire hand, I took the After photo. I repeated the entire thing a second time.

Unfortunately, all the concealers I trialled this time were good colour matches for my skin, which meant that although the creasing was quite obvious up close in person, there’s a bit of detail lost in the photographs.

The MAC Pro Longwear fingers looked the same as in the first test, with minimal creasing. There’s a bit of settling in the deeper creases.

Collection 2000 Lasting Perfection looked exactly the same as MAC Pro Longwear, with minimal creasing except for a bit of settling in the deeper knuckle creases. I was quite surprised – I expected them to be quite similar, but they’re way closer than I would’ve predicted. If they’d been the exact same shade I doubt I’d be able to tell them apart.

Annoyingly, it’s a bit hard to see how MAC Select Cover-Up did on my fingers due to the lighting and the angle of the photograph. It looks close to perfect here, but in face there was a significant amount of settling in the shallower furrows running down the length of my fingers, but a similar amount of creasing in the knuckle crease as with the other two concealers.


Since MAC Pro Longwear and Collection 2000 Lasting Perfection performed so similarly, I decided to look at the ingredients of all three concealers to hopefully better understand what was going on.

MAC Pro Longwear

Cyclopentasiloxane, Water, Trimethylsiloxysilicate, Butylene Glycol, Sorbitan Sesquioleate, PEG/PPG-18/18 Dimethicone, Tribehenin, Magnesium Sulfate, Phenyl Trimethicone, Tocopheryl Acetate, Sodium Hyaluronate, Glycerin, Dimethicone, Methicone, Ethylhexylglycerin, Pentaerythrityl Tetra-di-t-butyl Hydroxyhydrocinnamate, Laureth-7, Xanthan Gum, Phenoxyethanol, Chlorphenesin, Sorbic Acid (may contain CI 77891/Titanium Dioxide, CI 77491/CI 77492/CI 77499/Iron Oxides)

Collection 2000 Lasting Perfection

Aqua, Talc, Cyclopentasiloxane, Isododecane, Hydrogenated Polycyclopentadiene, Cyclohexasiloxane, Cetyl PEG/PPG 10/1 Dimethicone, Polyglyceryl-4 Isostearate, Hexyl Laurate, Acrylates/Trimethyl Siloxymethacrylate Copolymer, Silica, Butylene Glycol, Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Cera Microcristallina, Triethoxycaprylylsilane, Phenoxyethanol, Sodium Chloride, Methylparaben, Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, Butylparaben, Isobutylparaben, Disodium EDTA, (may contain CI 77891, CI 77492, CI 77499)

MAC Select Cover-Up

Water, Butylene Glycol, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, TEA-Stearate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Propylene Glycol Stearate, Magnesium Aluminum Silicate, Cetyl Esters, Lecithin, Polybutene, Butyrospermum Parkii, Tocopherol, Polysorbate 85, Cetyl Alcohol, Stearic Acid, Stearyl Alcohol, Disodium EDTA, Phenoxyethanol, Mica, Titanium Dioxide, Iron Oxides, Bismuth Oxychloride, CI 77288, Ultramarines 

It seems like the high silicone content (I’ve highlighted the silicone/silicone-containing ingredients in blue) is the main thing that distinguishes MAC Pro Longwear/Collection 2000 Lasting Perfection and MAC Select Cover-Up – Select Cover-Up is silicone-free. I’m surprised that there’s so little overlap between the ingredients in the first two concealers – it makes sense, since the textures of the two are quite different (Pro Longwear is a lot runnier), even though they gave me similar results.

Black paper test

Here are the three concealers swiped with my finger over black paper, to show the texture and coverage. 

MAC Pro Longwear and Collection 2000 both spread smoothly with moderate coverage – the high silicone content is likely to be responsible for the even texture and the concealers’ resistance to settling. MAC Select Cover-Up has better coverage, but spreads a bit unevenly. In addition to the silicone content, the greater pigmentation may also explain why the settling in the creases is more obvious with this than the other two concealers.


It’s always a bit dodgy when you’re comparing the price per mL of products in different packaging that retains different amounts at the end and dries out the product to different extents, and which might require different quantities for the same results… but I’m going to do it anyway, since I haven’t used any of the concealers long enough to say how long a tube lasts. I’m going by the easiest way of acquiring these products, but I’ve included a few alternative methods in case you have access. ($ = AUD, using current conversion rates without factoring in fees)

MAC Pro Longwear
Australian retail: $32/9 mL = $3.56/mL
US retail: 19 USD/9 mL = 2.11 USD/mL = $2.35/mL

Collection 2000 Lasting Perfection
I can’t find info on the package size. Judging from similar sized doefoot applicator tubes I would estimate 6-8 mL, so I’m calculating for the worst possible scenario, 6 mL.
Current eBay prices, including shipping: ~$18/6 mL = $3.00/mL
eBay prices when I bought it 4 months ago: $12/6 mL = $2.00/mL (including fees)
UK retail: 4.19 GBP/6 mL = 0.70 GBP/mL = $1.29/mL

MAC Select Cover-Up
Australian retail: $32/10mL = $3.20/mL
US retail: 18 USD/10 mL =1.8 USD/mL = $2.00/mL


Collection 2000 Lasting Perfection wins in my books – even though the cost saving isn’t substantial, the packaging is just so much less hassle than for MAC Pro Longwear. The creasing control on oily skin is just as good. and I’m lucky enough that one of their 4 shades works for me.

However, my experiments only looked at creasing on oily skin. Creasing due to dry skin is a completely different story, and it’s quite likely that the concealers that work well on oily skin will dry out skin that’s already too dry.

You can also see comparisons with Clarins Instant Concealer, Benefit Fake Up and Skinfood Salmon in my original post.

Skincare Guide

Related Posts

5 thoughts on “Concealer creasing comparison 2.0 – Collection 2000 vs MAC”

  1. Thanks for this, super useful and thorough! I bought he Collection concealer while holidaying in London last September but I purchased the wrong shade for me … so I never use it. Such a shame!

  2. your publish is very much valued Thanks for discussing amazing details. No question it is reliable details but analysis recognized that individuals want to take useful details which is provided very well. i also tried to discuss very useful details.Concealers


Leave a Comment