Initially I wasn't that impressed by this, mostly because I wasn't sure it does anything, but once I made pictures/videos for review I saw that it brightens the area up nicely. It's a very pale pink shade and that suits my skin tone more than the peachy corrector from Catrice. I find it's best to apply this over concealer instead of under it and it adds a nice final touch to the makeup, making you look more rested. I'm not a big fan of the formula and I hope Essence brings this shade in a liquid form. Though it is creamy and glides on the skin easily, it tends to look a bit heavy or it starts to look not that smooth a while after application on my dry skin. But I use it regularly now. I use either a brush or a finger, but I never swipe it on directly on the skin.

Review | Video

This is beautiful shade for my skin tone. It's close to a natural flush colour and it makes the skin look so fresh. I could call it a typical peachy-pink with golden shimmer a.k.a. the Nars Orgasm dupe (in a loose sense. We all know how many alleged "dupes" exist), but this one has the perfect balance between pink and peachy tones. Pigmentation is medium and needs to be build up, but the glow shows up faster than the colour.

A very impressive formula, even for a regular one. It adds a lot of length with one coat, it's also nicely volumising and it's very decent at definition because it has good hold. It can make the lashes look big and "glamourous". It can even hold my stubborn lashes up a bit, which I appreciate given that it's a regular, washable formula. 

I got several shades and this one is the closest to my natural lip colour. It's a touch deeper and pinker, but a good shade for a no makeup makeup look and for shaping the lips. It's very similar to the discontinued Soft Contouring 07 Lost in Love that I have been using a lot over the years, except that's it's pinker.

I finally got a chance to test this properly when my skin got unclear a few weeks back and I can say this worked so well on me. Formula is light, gel-like and it leaves a layer on the skin, like a primer. My skin was clear in a matter of days - not that the breakout was terrible, but I was happy with results.

I got these a week or two ago so I only tried them together so far, as one is a protein treatment and the other a kind of a finisher (it's best used after a conditioner). They made my hair feel amazing - light, nourished and silky. It's a similar effect to Moroccanoil Colour Depositing Mask (without the colour part). I used the protein treatment Elizavecca first. It's hailed as a dupe for Olaplex - it's not, but it's kind of a dupe for Joico K-Pak as both are packed with hydrolised proteins and aminoacids. The Glycolic Gloss added that silicone slipperiness I like and some extra shine, but not like a shine spray. I need to try them separately too, though I don't want to, as together these are such a great combination that rivals (professional) salon brands. 

ColorStay Matte Lite Crayon boast with a claim that they are 30% lighter than your average lipstick and that they are so lightweight you'll forget they're on. I'd say their main advantage is precision and great colour payoff, while the formula may be lighter than most, but they've already launched a similarly feather light formula before, their Suede Ink. There are 12 shades in total, I have 6.

These have a great pigmentation and one swipe leaves you with a fully opaque colour. They feel creamy at application and glide smoothly on the lips. Eventually they set and are dry to the touch. They don't transfer to anything, but if you try to wipe them off, some of the colour will be removed, so they are not as resilient as Suede Ink. They are meant to be lip liners and lipsticks in one, but for absolute precision you need to sharpen them almost before every use - I never bother with it as the edges look fine to me. Finish is matte, on my pictures it's right after application and they set to a shine free look within minutes.

Staying power is great, which is usual for (new & matte) Revlon formulas. They don't last quite as long as Suede Ink, though. Formula contains mango seed oil, but these aren't particularly nourishing, as is usual for matte lipsticks. .

002 Clear the Air is a brown-beige shade. It should look a better nude shade on deeper skin tones than mine.

004 Take Flight is a light-medium muted peachy-pink.

006 Lift off is a medium warm pink.

008 She's Fly is a medium coral-orange.

009 Ruffled Feathers is a warm, tomato red.

Air Kiss is a cool toned red.

The twist up mechanism works fine and there is an added sharpener at the back, so you can have a sharp tip when needed.

They have a vanilla scent.

These cost 11,90 €

*PR products. Paid promotion.

Texture: Formula is thin, liquid and blends easily. It's doesn't dry too fast, so you have more time to work with it than at for example Catrice's Liquid Coverage, but at some point it does set, so if I apply it with fingers I have to be quicker than with a damp sponge.



Coverage and finish: Coverage is light-medium, compared to the Foundation it’s similar, but it's a bit lower. Finish is glowy at application and when it sets to an almost dry-to-the-touch feeling it still has a glow. It's not oily-looking, however, unlike at the Foundation this Serum doesn't look as skin-like, though I've had some good days with it when it looked more natural. It still looks better than the Maybelline's Serum version, but similar to that one and Catrice's foundation, it more often than not emphasizes pores and because of that doesn't look as fresh close up as I'd like. Freshly applied it looks great, but as it sets I wish my skin looked less textured with it. I wore the Foundation and Serum on each side of the face and Foundation side looked smoother despite being on the side where my pores look worse. Both Serum and Foundation version are more suited for normal-dry skin than oily.




Shades: Shade range is lacking, as they have two 51 shades and no 50 that I use at HM foundation, so none of the shades match me. I wear 51,2W as it's less warm toned than 51, but it's still noticeably too dark. If at least one were neutral or had an undertone that were much softer, they wouldn’t look so mismatched. I swatched the old serum in 51 vs. the new one and 51W is about the same shade as before. I got sent most of the shades, the only one missing is 56W. Shades are overall quite warm, which is typical for Bourjois foundations.

Staying power: Staying power is average, just like at every HM formula so far. These are all hydrating foundations that don't stick on all well as matte ones, so a powder is needed for better staying power.




Scent: It's quite a perfumed product with some floral-fruity scent. Personally I like the typical Healthy Mix scent.



Packaging: A glass bottle with a pipette. The latter picks up and dispenses product with no problem unlike at some other similar foundations. The neck is large and has no stopper, so this foundation can get messy if you're not careful.

Price and availability: These are sold in drugstores here (DM, Müller). Bourjois has been slowly and sneakily raising their prices, since I started buying Healthy Mix Serum/Foundation formulas so this new foundation is almost 20 € in Slovenia - you can't really call it drugstore anymore. It's 16,5 € in France.

Both Essence and Catrice launched under eye brighteners or colour correctors in the last year, but they are quite different. I got both to compare.

Catrice's version, which exists in two shades and I have the lightest, is a salmon/peach colour corrector that counteracts blue-purple tones of under eye circles. It's been among most sold products on Müller's website pretty much since its launch, but I was worried since it's in a pot that the texture is too thick and dry for my skin like their Camouflage pot concealer, so I only bought this recently after I was assured that it should work on dry skin just fine.

Formula is creamier than Catrice's Camouflage pot concealer and it's suitable for my dry under eye area. It blends well even without the warmth of fingers and doesn't look cakey, the creamy formula also allows layering of a concealer on top. The shade is not ideal for my circles. It doesn't counteract the discoloration on me and the shade is dark for my pale skin tone, so it doesn't brighten. It more just looks like a peachy concealer under my eyes. For comparion Maybelline's Eraser version in Brightener is a bit more pink and a touch lighter. Catrice's coverage is about medium, so it can be worn without a concealer on top if you feel it does the job well on its own.

I did a test with this under one eye and the other with NYX's Bare with Me concealer and I feel the concealer does a better job, but given that I've seen how well this brightener works on others, it's still worth a try if you're looking for such a product. For my very pale skin tone, I find Essence's version suits me better, while this one will likely suit those with a bit deeper skin tones.

This was much harder to track down than Catrice's version. It's out of stock here very often, even online. This is a lighter product than Catrice's, as it's a very pale pink. I'd almost call it a highlighter, though it's mostly matte, but there is some minimal glow to it.

They decided to use stick format, like their blushes and I'm not a fan of that. I'd much prefer a liquid or a pot version like Catrice's, as the size of it makes it hard to apply it precisely under the eyes. I don't swipe it on because of that, instead I use a small dense brush or a finger. Formula is creamy and glides easily on the skin, but it's less creamy and smooth than Catrice's, so it has a tendency to look heavy and cakey under my dry eyes. I can't be sure if oiliness of the skin makes it melt it better or slide off, for that you'll have to find a different reviewers. But due to the texture this doesn't look as fresh as I'd like if you look close up. I've also heard from another reviewer that it slips into lines and highlights them if you're not careful at application (it was said to me it looks better over concealer in that case, which I agree).

Essence says to use it under makeup. I've tried it both ways, with it under concealer and over it, and I prefer the latter. Applying concealer over it adds coverage, but hides the brightening effect, while putting it on top adds brightness you'd expect from such a product. This can be used on its own if desired. I've shown you how much it covers by itself on the bottom pictures (and a Tik Tok video, if you'd prefer to see how it applies), but I prefer an extra concealer under it. It has a lot of pigmentation when you swipe it on the skin, but most of the colour blends away quickly, so I find I have to layer it for a good effect. Shade is very pale, so I think it's best suited for lighter skin tones. I don't know, but I feel it may look odd on deeper ones, where Catrice's versions would fare better.

I hope in time Essence comes up with a liquid version of this shade. Maybe something like their discontinued Camouflage Healthy Glow concealer, which was one of their most natural looking formulas.

These are described as a liquid blush and lip colour with a natural mat finish. I've tried it on the lips, but it ends up much lighter than on the cheeks, so it doesn't match that nicely, plus the formula is a bit thin and bare-feeling compared to a lipstick. I've bought a couple of liquid blushes recently and this formula is the easiest to work with on my pale skin.

Formula is creamy when squeezed out, but it blends out to a thinner formula than most of my liquid blushes. This can be nicely blended with fingers and I feel you have most control when applied like that, but a brush works too. The problem with the latter is that it's hard to coat it evenly, so it can look splotchy in places when you start applying it on the skin. I start slow, with a very small amount of product and if needed I add a layer

I bought shade 010 Pink Feelings, a light pink. It's similar to Essence's Baby Got Blush Stick version in 10 Tickle me Pink on my cheeks, a favourite of mine, though Catrice's version can be applied more intense if desired. Shade has no shimmer. The new tube version of Essence's Baby got Blush in shade 10 is warmer and more pigmented. They have a very interesting deep berry shade that reminds me of the famous Clinique Black Honey, which I'm interested in getting next.

Staying power is better than Essence's version and it's still on the cheeks at the end of the day, provided the foundation hasn't worn off.

Packaging has a small nozzle which for now is precise, but it may start being problematic when the bottle will be more empty.

It's nice to see so many cream blushes. About two years ago I could find a single one in drugstores. Essence has the stick version of Baby got Blush, which are rarely on the stands, but it's one of my favourites. Now they launched a liquid version.

The packaging has a sponge with a single hole in the middle, so the blush doesn't soak it evenly like Maybelline the Eraser concealer for example and if you don't close the blush by twisting its neck before putting the cap back on, next time you open the blush there is spillage. The sponge just deposits the blush on the skin, but it can't be used for blending. Formula is thicker than Catrice's liquid blush and it's more pigmented. It blends well regardless what you use and about three dots of product are enough for my cheeks.

The shade looks similar to Catrice's Pink Feelings straight from the tube, though it looks brighter when swatched. On my cheeks it turns warmer, a bit peachier than both Catrice's Blush Affair in 010 and the stick version of Essence's Baby got Blush in 010. Due to that those with a warmer skin tone may prefer it. Staying power is good, it's on my cheeks at least 8 h later.

I got this shade by mistake, since I wanted colour 10, but this was in its place on the (very empty looking) stand and I just assumed it's the right one. It doesn't matter anyway, as Breezy Bronze is not bronze. It's not as light as my other liquid highlighters, but not pigmented enough to look obviously too dark.

I've had this for a while and I haven't warmed up to it. The formula is not my favourite, just like I wasn't a fan of Catrice's liquid highlighter. Applied from the tube with the applicator it doesn't work. It becomes patchy when I try to blend, it shifts and becomes barely noticeable. I find it's best to squeeze some on the back of my hand, warm it up a bit and then apply it on the cheek with fingers. The glow is not strong, so this is one of the weaker highlighters even when I try to build it up. At least it has no big shimmer particles.

I've since had a chance to buy 10, but I opted not to. It's just not as good of a formula as Oriflame The One version.

Essence revamped their blushes again. I've tried most versions and honestly they never make that big of a change, but they are always good. I picked shade Lovely Lilac because it's the only purple blush in local drugstores and I've been looking for such a shade a while ago, as everything pulls warm on me and I wanted a cool pink.

Formula is creamy when I swatch it with fingers, just like their previous versions. A fluffy brush picks it up well and due to the depth of the shade I need to be careful as pigmentation is intense as far as my pale skin is concerned, so it can be quickly over applied. Luckily it can be blended out easily.

Catrice discontinued their Liquid Liner Matt that I've been using for many years and have bought over 10 in row. They replaced it with this. It looks the same and in many ways performs the same, but unlike the old one, this is not the formula I can always trust to look ok at the end of the day. The change didn't go down well with others either based on reviews on Catrice's website, but who knows why they decided (of maybe had) to make it. A waterproof version exists too.

I tested the old vs. new side by side, one on each eye. They apply the same, though the new applicator is a bit less soft and flexible, but the lines are very alike in terms of thickness and how easy it is to create a wing. It glides easily on the skin, it's instantly fully opaque and there's no need to go over the line again. There's also enough formula on the applicator for the second eye and there's no need for an extra dip into the tube. The old one was never an eyeliner you could use to draw super fine lines like with Essence's 24h Ever Ink pen one, so the new one also draws medium thick lines. They both dry matte and both are very black, actually the new one is a bit more intense, but that's probably because my old is several months old.

I've had various results with it. The first day when I made the test comparison with the old eyeliner, the new Ink version smudged all over and it was a complete disaster. I don't remember what foundation if any I wore or what was my skin care routine that may have affected it, frankly it doesn't matter, as on the other side the line with the old Liquid Liner was still there and only slightly faded. So clearly the new one is not as resilient as the old formula. I've still worn it loads since and it fared better since then, but I make sure I apply a lot of powder as a base so the area is dry to the touch. Sometimes it fades a lot, but most of the time it survives well. Since my eyelids are not oily, I have no idea how it works on oily skin.

I was very angry the first day I tried it and I was immediately googling for a replacement. But I've since calmed down. After the first day, I've averted big smudgy disasters, but I still don't trust it - and that's sad given how reliable I found the old formula. Out of replacements I've tried the Trend it Up Serum eyeliner, which has an almost identical applicator, but the formula is less intense, it can look watery in places and it doesn't last not even as long as the new Ink version. The more expensive Revlon Colorstay Micro eyeliner is the best option for replacing the old eyeliner, but I may try some more options, including the waterproof version of Ink Eyeliner.

These have been around for many years and are available in several shades/scents. You may recall the old tubes that had fruit drawn on them. These are some of the cheapest products you can get on Essence stands, in fact out of all makeup in drugstores here. They recently launched lip oils versions, but I have yet to see them, since Essence stands around here are becoming less and less stocked.

Formula is quite plain, especially compared to some great formulas I've had a chance to try recently. It's just a classic (thin) lip gloss that doesn't stay long on the lips or at least it doesn't stay glossy long.

I picked up two shades, the 104 Poppin' Pomegranate and 102 Witty Watermelon. First tints the lips pink-red and smells something like strawberry soft sweets. The other Watermelon one is less impressive in terms of colour, as it's clear, so you don't get a pretty pink tint on the lips. But at least it smells like Watermelon, thought it doesn't last long.

If you want a fruity smelling gloss that performs much better, is very nourishing and lasts well, Milani's Lip Oils are better, but also a lot more expensive. I'd like to try the lip oil versions of Essence Juicy's, maybe they'll impress me more.

I have a couple of these in different shades (likely all discontinued colours). While the others have nice creamy formulas, this one is drier. It doesn't glide on the lips as smoothly and needs to be layered, but it can be applied all over the lips if you try. I've seen at other brands that such pale shades tend to be drier, so I'm not surprised. This is a "concealer on the lips" type of colour, so almost a skin tone shade.

Thin along with the Juicy Bombs this is one of the cheapest (non-pencil) makeup you can get in drugstores here. It's even cheaper than Labello/Nivea lip balms. And honestly, it shows. Formula is hard and doesn't feel as intensely nourishing as proper lip balms, though it should hydrate enough if the lips are moderately dry. There are four shades here, this is the newest and I think they were trying to jump on the Back Honey trend, meaning it's a deep berry shade. It ends up sheer on the lips despite the deep appearance in the tube and even for that you have to build it up a lot. Labello/Nivea Blackberry is its main competition, which has a softer, more pigmented formula, though Essence's shade ends up more pink on the lips. I miss a nice, strong juicy scent at these, like Labello has.

This has a "best-seller" label next to it on the stand. I had Essence's glosses before and honestly I didn't expect much, at least that this won't be as good as Catrice's Plump it up, but was nonetheless a pleasant surprise, though more in terms of pigmentation. After trying the somewhat disappointing Juicy Bomb in Watermelon, I expected this to be sheer as well, but it packs quite a punch. Pigmentation is good and this ends up semi-opaque on the lips, giving a nice pink shade to the lips. Formula is not as nice as Catrice's, but better than Juicy Bombs. It's got a medium thick formula and a little bit of menthol, which very gently tingles. The only thing I miss is more shine.

I was drawn to these because they are scented and I wanted to grab all three of the shades because of that, but decided to hold back and try just one. I'm glad I did because the scent is is barely noticeable and I can't even describe what it smells like. Quite disappointing. Pupa did it so much better.

It's a jelly formula with the first coat being very sheer and the nail tips are still visible after three coats.

You may remember these having a moment years ago. Well, Essence launched it again, but only in black. It's a nail polish that shrinks while drying, thereby cracking and creating unique patterns. A thin coat works best and the effect is quick, it takes about a minute to really settle. This doesn't work over bare nails, there has to be a coat of dry nail polish under it. Too bad Essence only made a black one, as a gold and silver would be very impressive.

There's a top cot over it, the Cracking polish is matte. 

I didn't give this a proper try nor did I do before/after pictures, but considering it's the cheapest concealer you can get in the drugstores, from what I've tried, it's not bad. It swatches creamy, but I was surprised that when swiped it under the eyes it looked like it's going to be a cakey disaster, however, it blended into the skin nicely (with fingers). It's still more of a concealer for oily skin and not really best for under the eyes (at least on my dry skin). Coverage is very good, medium-full. Finish is matte. Shade 10 is too dark for my pale skin, but's it's still light. There are only three shades.