Inside a lab, those three things feel very different, even if they all get flattened into “dupe” on TikTok. Benchmarking is basically competitive homework. You buy the product, you live with it, you document texture, dry-down, wear, and it becomes a reference point when you write your brief. Reverse engineering is a technical exercise. You map the INCI, run analytical work (such as GC-MS, HPLC, etc.) and rebuild something that behaves similarly, but you’re still making decisions about materials, suppliers and tradeoffs.
Copying is when the brief says, “Make this indistinguishable,” so you aim for same texture, same shade, frighteningly close scent, sometimes even packaging and claim language designed to lean on the original equity.
For me, the ethical line is intent and added value. If we’re using a benchmark to understand the bar and then push to improve stability, sensorial, tolerability or price, that’s just healthy competition. If the goal is “ride this other brand’s R&D and brand story as cheaply as possible,” that’s where I say a hard no.
We were asked to “match” or “beat” existing products often. That’s just the reality of being a contract manufacturer. The red-flag asks sound like, “Can you clone this exact viral serum, including the fragrance, but cheaper so we can undercut them?” or “We want this same thing, same shade, same bottle, but with our logo.” At that point you’re not building a brand. You’re building a counterfeit with better lighting. I personally can’t stand by that.
When those briefs land, I usually push back and reframe. What do you actually like about this product? The finish? The way sensitive skin tolerates it? The price point? Once we know that, we can build something in the same competitive universe that’s legally and creatively yours, maybe a different sensorial angle, different actives, different positioning. That approach is slower than a straight copy, but it doesn’t put my team or the client on the wrong side of IP or retailer trust. Sadly, there have been clients who ask for it to be exactly the same even after I push back. We just will simply walk away. No duping/no reversing.
Right now, I think the industry is mostly operating on vibes and lawyer emails, which is not a great long-term strategy. I know some manufacturers might have no ethical qualms about reverse engineering. I can understand the need if a retail product’s manufacturer just simply closed their doors and reversing is the only option, but in the 20-plus years doing this, I have run across it once and didn’t end up reversing, but instead improved upon the product with using it as a benchmark instead.
I’d love to see clearer industry guidelines that separate legitimate benchmarking from deceptive dupe marketing, especially as retailers start giving dupes their own endcaps and as dupe fragrance brands move into the same aisles as the originals. Sensible basics would be something such as “don’t deliberately mimic trade dress,” “be precise in comparative claims,” and “don’t promise exact dupe if your formula and testing don’t support that” or better yet, just don’t promise to dupe at all.
With AI making high-fidelity matching easier, there also needs to be a human in the loop to ensure formulas stay compliant regionally and don’t blindly reproduce restricted ingredients or shaky claims. Otherwise, we’re going to see more fast dupe launches that look clever on TikTok and turn into regulatory headaches six months later.
From a consumer standpoint, dupe has become shorthand for “want it exactly like this, but cheaper,” and that can describe anything from loose inspiration to near counterfeit. Behind the scenes, benchmarking and reverse engineering are just tools. We use them to understand what’s working in the market and to figure out how to deliver similar or better outcomes at different price points, for different skin types or with different regulatory guardrails.
Two products that look like twins on TikTok can have very different preservative systems, potential allergens, stability profile and levels of testing, and those differences matter especially for leave-on actives and sensitive users. At the same time, I’ll admit dupe culture has been good for discipline. If your $80 product can be functionally matched at $18, you need to be crystal clear about what that extra $62 is paying for beyond a logo.
