This or That with Kiehl’s Micro-Blur & L’Oreal Miracle Blur

1

Kiehl’s Micro-Blur Skin Perfector is a new, Nordstrom exclusive facial primer that promises to blur the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles but you might want to try out L’Oreal Miracle Blur for less!

This week’s This or That Beauty faces off these two primers.

Kiehl’s Micro-Blur Skin Perfector promises a lightweight texture to features a blend of LHA, lentil and bark extracts to visibly transform your skin as well as perfect it so fine lines and pores are blurred.

L’Oreal Miracle Blur
is formulated to instantly blurs lines, wrinkles, pores and uneven texture while mattifying skin.

Of course, the nice thing about L’Oreal Miracle Blur which is essentially the same dimethicone based primer you’re getting with Kiehl’s version is the fact that it is $19.99 where as Kiehl’s version is $35. Plus you have a better chance of scoring L’Oreal’s version on sale and even using coupons to grab it which makes it the nicer, cheaper option to indulge in.

Either that or head in for a Monistat purchase but I haven’t quite convinced myself this is a good idea to use on my face, sorry, you can try to convince me all you want but it hasn’t swayed me yet icon smile

Have you tried either Micro Blur or Miracle Blur?

Share your thoughts!

  • 4/1/14 20:49 Miranda:

    I really like the Miracle Blur, but I’ve also tried cheaper primers with performance just as good!

    Reply

  • 4/1/14 21:10 Ashley:

    Haha! But it isn’t yeast medication, silly. If you tried to use that for an infection you’d probably end up sorry.

    Reply

    • 4/1/14 21:54 Isabella Muse:

      whoops! I’m not sure if I want to put it on my face regardless! hehe!

      Reply

  • 4/1/14 21:12 Patrice:

    Ha – the Monistat used as a primer is NOT yeast infection treatment. It’s the Chafing Relief Powder Gel.

    The ingredients are: Dimethicone (1.2%) Cyclopentasiloxane, Dimethicone/Vinyl Dimethicone Crosspolymer, Silica, Tocopheryl Acetate, Trisiloxane

    Not a medication, but a gel that leaves a nice slippy finish. It’s cheaper than these products and pretty much the same ingredients.

    Reply

    • 4/1/14 21:54 Isabella Muse:

      OOPS my bad :-D either way kinda not sure I want to put it on my face or not…!

      Reply

      • 4/1/14 21:56 Patrice:

        You should try it just once at least! It won’t cost you much…

        Reply

        • 4/1/14 21:59 Isabella Muse:

          I think I’ll skip :-D

          Reply

  • 4/1/14 21:36 Jane:

    Regardless of your personal squicks, please don’t spread false information. Monistat Anti-Chafing Gel is absolutely NOT YEAST MEDICATION and women should not be misled to believe it can or should be used as such. This fact, along with its ingredients, are clearly stated on its packaging.

    Reply

    • 4/1/14 21:56 Isabella Muse:

      I’m actually not spreading false information Jane I simply made a mistake between the two products none the less I won’t be putting it on my face when it is in fact used for chafting :) I can’t even used Smashbox Photofinish without breaking out into hives so I’ll def skip on Monistat. No one is misleading anyone, I simply made a mistake.

      Reply

  • 4/2/14 6:11 Susannah:

    Anyone with any intelligence who is following this particular tag would never think that Isabella is spreading false information. She has made it quite clear that she has no intention of putting any Monistat product on her face, whatever the purpose of the product.

    Geez

    Reply

    • 4/2/14 10:54 Jane:

      Actually Susannah, by publishing untrue information to a platform that is read by a sizable number of (largely female) followers, “spreading false information” is by definition exactly what she was doing – albeit unknowingly. We all make mistakes. No one was suggesting that Isabella is a bad person, or has some nefarious plot to sabotage the hoo-ha’s of the beauty world! The intention was simply to point out the error and perhaps suggest that she do a bit more thorough research in the name of due diligence and journalistic responsibility in the interest of womens health- about which there is already far too much misinformation. It was never personal. Your attempt to “defend” the Muse by insulting peoples’ intelligence, doesn’t do her – or you – any favors; it only undermines an attempt at a mature exchange of information, and creates unnecessary drama.

      Reply

      • 4/2/14 11:41 Isabella Muse:

        Hi Jane I’m not a journalist merely a blogger. I’ve never claimed Musings of a Muse to be a professional publication, it’s a personal blog, hobby and passion of mine but not something I’ve do as a full time job so errors, mistakes do happen from time to time especially since I’m a multitasking demon trying to get a hold on keeping this site maintained and working a full time job. I don’t identify myself as an editor or expert of any kind merely someone who is sharing my love of beauty with others! Hope this clears things up!

        Reply

        • 4/2/14 11:46 Jane:

          Yes it does. You both missed my point completely. This is clearly not the blog for me. Best of luck in the future.

          Reply

          • 4/2/14 11:58 Isabella Muse:

            I didn’t really miss your point was merely trying to explain my side. I’m sorry to hear you won’t be reading anymore.

  • 4/2/14 9:42 Patrice:

    Final thought from those who are freaked out at the thought of putting the chafing relief powder gel on their faces: Every ingredient found in that product is also found in expensive primers like the Smashbox Iconic Photo Finish Primer, which sells for $36 for one ounce at Sephora. They add in some fancy sounding extracts, but the main ingredients that make the primer what it is are EXACTLY the same as the chafing gel.

    Reply

  • 4/2/14 10:32 Susannah:

    ok I may just try this. But between Monistat on my face and hemorrhoid crème under my eyes to reduce puffiness (red carpet trick,) I’ll hardly know which end is up.

    Reply

    • 4/2/14 10:44 Isabella Muse:

      LOL you’re too cute Susannah :)

      Reply

  • 4/2/14 13:20 Amanda:

    I did try the small size of Miracle Blur but found it quite greasy on me! I know there’s an oil free version now, but I’ll wait til I see the sample size to pick it up! 6.99 is more my speed to try it out!

    Reply

    • 4/2/14 13:35 Isabella Muse:

      Amanda I think it might been the SPF, lots of folks said the same…! there is indeed an oil free one now :)

      Reply

  • 4/3/14 13:05 Deb:

    Hi Muse. Now that Jane has the lecture and hissy fit out of the way, let’s talk about the Monistat chafing gel. Your regular readers got your point; not to worry, we weren’t confused! I have used the chafing gel and it works quite well. But since you don’t get on well with cones, I think you made the right decision to skip it. You would probably hate it and it would make you itchy. It is definitely loaded with cones. Having said that, for those of us that don’t have that problem it’s an inexpensive option. After all, it’s just a tube of gel :)

    Reply

  • 4/3/14 23:30 Elsa:

    Loreal owns Kiehls.
    The same product, different brand packaging.

    Reply

  • 4/4/14 14:22 Susannah:

    L’Oreal also owns Lancôme, but I’m not sure the products in their lines are all the same, albeit with different packaging and price points. I believe the higher end products don’t have as much ‘filler’ in them and perhaps are more potent.

    What are you thoughts on this dear Muse? Are L’Oreal’s products in their various lines pretty much the same?

    Reply

    • 4/7/14 15:41 Isabella Muse:

      Agreed on this Susannah…they do take an extra step with some of their higher end options. that goes for any sister companies in my experience!

      Reply

  • 4/7/14 16:40 Susannah:

    Yes, I thought so. Or else why would anyone purchase Lancôme products if you could simply buy the similar L’Oreal product for much less money at the drug or grocery store?

    There are some great L’Oreal products out there — Glow Renewal for one. Great moisturizer! It seems to work better on my skin than the Lancôme moisturizer I was using.

    Reply

    • 4/8/14 15:37 Isabella Muse:

      I think some products like the Infallible eyeshadow slash Color Design Infinité are something you can save $$ on as the formulas are identical and some of the shades are easy enough to dupe! But some of their higher end skin cream likely have a bit more that goes into them compared to the watered down versions from L’Oreal at the drugstore :-D I haven’t tried the Glow Renewal but hearing great things ;-D

      Reply

  • 5/15/14 10:41 Diana:

    Hi! I just wanted to say this was a great post, and I’m sorry someone took the time to call out a simple mistake. I currently am using the Kiehl’s but that’s only because I pretty much use the entire line and the ingredients compliment each other. Right now they are having a sale 20% off which would make it only $10 more than the L’OReal. Keep up the good work! Also I’ve tried monistat for my eyebags…and um no thanks never again.

    Reply

  • 5/23/14 15:59 Donalea:

    My understanding is that the Kiehl’s micro-blur actually works inside the pores to clear them. I don’t think that L’oreal makes that claim. I have used miracle blur, garner (won’t let me spell it right) five second blur, mally’s primer and smash box photo ready. I am going to try the Kiehl’s because I feel like all the others do clog the pores,

    Reply

Comments are moderated and won't show up immediately