AURIC Morganite 2.0 Glow Lust Review & Swatches
Morganite 2.0
Auric Morganite 2.0 Glow Lust Radiant Luminizer ($45.00 for 1.13 oz.) is a light beige with soft, warm undertones and a fine, pearly sheen. It had a low-level sheen on skin, applied on its own, as a standalone highlighter, so it never emphasized my skin’s natural texture. When mixed in with moisturizer or foundation, it added noticeable luminosity without drastically altering the finish.
The consistency was smooth, lightweight, and spreadable with a gel-cream feel that made it a little denser/thicker compared to other competing products (which are more fluid/thinner). It had sheerer coverage, which could be dialed up by layering or applying more. The product applied well with fingertips or a stippling brush on bare skin or over complexion products. As a standalone highlighter, it stayed on nicely for nine hours before fading slightly.
Note: The brand reformulated the color of Morganite to make it “10% lighter” than the original as there were significant requests for a lighter shade, and they decided to differentiate Morganite compared to the next-lightest (Selenite).
FURTHER READING: Formula Overview for details on general performance and characteristics (like scent).
Top Dupes
- Charlotte Tilbury Fair (1) (P, $44.00) is more shimmery (95% similar).
- Lisa Eldridge Cosmic Rose (P, $38.00) is darker, cooler (90% similar).
- MAC Climax (LE, ) is more shimmery (90% similar).
- Auric Selenite (P, $45.00) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Becca Luminary (1) (P, $30.00) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Auric Morganite (DC, $45.00) is darker, warmer (90% similar).
- Urban Decay Universal (LE, $32.00) is less shimmery, darker (90% similar).
- Phytosurgence Divine Daylight (P, $26.01) is darker, cooler, less glossy (85% similar).
- elf Fair (P, $14.00) is darker, warmer (85% similar).
- Lisa Eldridge Pink Moon (P, $38.00) is more shimmery, darker, cooler (85% similar).
Formula Overview
$45.00/1.13 oz. - $39.82 Per Ounce
The formula is supposed to have buildable coverage so it can be used "alone" or "blended" with skincare/foundation or "used as a highlighter on top of foundation."
The consistency was creamy, slightly thicker than a lot of liquid luminizers (but not heavy or overly thick), and it seemed more pigmented in its base compared to other liquid luminizers as well.
It had very fine pearl throughout that added luminosity and a subtle-to-light glow to skin with light dewiness. The shimmer was nearly undetectable when applied and diffused as a standalone product but still delivered a noticeable uptick in glowiness to my skin whether used alone or mixed in.
It was easy to mix in with moisturizer, primer, and foundation, and it also worked well patted on top of the high points of the face, whether my skin was bare or it was on top of foundation. I didn't have issues with it lifting up my base products--set and unset--when applied on top. It dried down for the most part, retained light dewiness to the eye, and wasn't tacky.
As a standalone highlighter, it wore well for nine hours before fading a bit, and I didn't notice any impact to longevity when combined with base products.
It felt more like a cross between Charlotte Tilbury's Hollywood Flawless Filter (which is thinner, a little runnier in comparison, and has more pronounced pearl/shimmer) and Natasha Denona's original Face Glow formula (which was a thicker, cream consistency that squeezed out of a tube and was very glowing but not as visibly shimmery).
The reality is that if you're someone who mixes these types of products with moisturizers or foundations, differences get more and more minimized (as they tend to sheer out, as they are supposed to). I wouldn't expect that if you're still working your way through something else and enjoy that that you'd have to run to get this, but it is certainly worth trying in the future if you like the idea of a subtler sheen but like this type of product.
Browse all of our Auric Glow Lust Radiant Luminizer swatches.
Christine — could you say how this compares to Burberry Fresh Glow Luminous Fluid Base (which I LOVE, but is getting increasingly difficult to find in Canada)? I like that Auric revamped this shade to be less ‘peachy’.
It’s been so long since I have tried that (and I don’t have it any more), that I am not sure! 🙁 I would guess AURIC is thicker since it is significantly more cream-like than most on the sheerer, liquid highlighters on the market.
As someone who is fair, I could probably wear this one! It’s so pretty!
Wow – this is beautiful…..sort of ethereal.
How do these compare with the Lisa Eldridge highlighters?
Glow Lust is less shimmery/intense, not as dewy!
How does this stack up in terms of application/look on the skin to the Hollywood Flawless Filter? I have shade 1 in the HFF but I’ve been so tempted by the revamp of this shade!
Hi Brooke!
Under Formula Overview, I compared Glow Lust to HFF!
I’m fair neutral and I’ve been curious about Glow Lust so I treated myself and bought this. My expectations were pretty grounded– Like, I figured this would share vanity time with my liquid highlighters, but I didn’t think it would be super different from most other products.
So far I’m REALLY impressed with both the formula and the packaging/component. I love how the product is so thick and smoothing on the skin. I’m happy I gave it a try.