How Much Do Your Eyeshadow Brushes Matter? Part 2

In May, I investigated whether quality eyeshadow brushes packed on eyeshadow better than their cheapo counterparts. I found that there was a huge difference in the amount of shadow different brushes could apply.

In response to this post, reader Anna asked, “Given that eyeshadow isn’t a question of how-much-do-i-stick-on-there but is usually kind of complex and blendy, and that presumably you could just stick on more stuff with the cheapo brushes, maybe you could do a head to head… test of brushes on each eye?”

Given the huge differences between different brushes, there was no way that I could conduct this test blind (which she had originally requested). So, as much as this will make any psychologists in my readership cringe, I just sort of did my best not to be terribly biased. Terrible methods, sorry. C’est la vie. Fund me and I’ll do a much better job, I promise.
I used my Urban Decay Ammo Eyeshadow Palette in the shades Polyester Bride, Grifter, Last Call, and Oil Slick to create my look. On one side, I used my MAC 239 and 217, which are the two brushes I use every day for eyeshadow. On the other side, I used the ELF Studio Eyeshadow “C” Brush and the (misleadingly named) ELF Studio Contour Brush. That means I had one “pack on the shadow” brush and one “fluffy blending your crease the fuck out” brush for each eye.

To my delight, I found that I was able to product comparable results using either set of brushes.

Although the two eyes appear quite similar, there is one stark, visible difference between the two. If you can’t see it, I have marked it for you in the picture below.
The fallout from the ELF brush was dramatic in comparison to the fallout from the MAC brush.

I marked the glitter that was evident in the picture using the dark spots, but obviously there was substantially more glitter that actually made its way onto my face. For you, wonderful readers, I counted every single piece of microglitter that was out of place (meaning under my eye, but not counting the part under my eye where I actually put eyeshadow, like, on purpose). Under the eye where I used MAC, there were 31 glitter particles. Under the eye where I used ELF, there were 86.

We can test whether this number is statistically significant using a Chi-square test, which is a test designed to compare actual and expected values. Given that there were a total of 117 glitter McGlittersons that were strewn across my cheeks, if there were no difference between the two brushes’ tendency towards fallout, we would expect that there would be equal amounts of glitter, 58.5, on each cheek.

My Chi-square test confirmed that the difference between these two eyes was, in fact, (VERY) statistically significant, c2(1, N = 117) = 25.85, p
I also noticed another important difference between these two brush brands: the amount of time it took to apply my eyeshadow seemed dramatically longer for the ELF brushes. However, since this was an unexpected observation, I didn’t time the amount of time it took to apply shadow to either eye. Thus, you can all look forward to a part three where I will investigate whether high-quality brushes decrease the amount of time that it takes to apply eyeshadow.


1. “Based on this, I feel comfortable concluding that ELF brushes produce significantly more eyeshadow fallout than Urban Decay brushes.” I think you intended to say MAC brushes.

2. Oops! Fixed it.

3. Annnnnd, I’ll just continue applying with my fingers. Beautying right?

4. Ha! Beauty however you want, amiga.

5. Nice one and really good to know!

6. Could the difference in time between the two brands of brushes be a result of using the MAC brushes everyday?

7. It’s possible, but that doesn’t seem to be the most likely situation to me because I only switched to MAC brushes recently. I used ELF brushes for a long time before I used MAC brushes.

8. I have 2 comments:
a) Is it possible that the fallout could have been due to the different angle of your hand when you apply to your left eye as opposed to your right? Actually, this would be pretty easy to test.
b)I don’t know how I stumbled onto this blog, but honestly, this site should be trumpeted online. This is one of the most interesting and useful beauty blogs I’ve ever read, with a unique and fascinating angle. Please don’t stop, I love reading this stuff!

9. I hadn’t considered that! I did a less careful test switching eyes and I still ended up with more fallout under ELF brushes.

10. you did a fucking chi-square test! I love you !!!!!!lol

11., I’m reading your entire archive right now. (Just tweeted about you; I am @brainwane .) A request: would it be feasible for you to release future research *data* under an open license, e.g. , to make it clear that others can build on your work appropriately?

Thanks for your research and writing.

Sumana Harihareswara

12. I just started looking at your blog… and you performed real statistical analysis. I am really impressed!! Really glad I stumbled upon this.