10 Best Virtual Mascara Try-On SDKs (2025) for Beauty Brands & Developers

Mascara might seem like a small detail in a beauty routine, but when it comes to virtual try-ons, it's one of the hardest effects to get right. I’ve spent a lot of time testing different AR SDKs, and mascara simulation always stood out as a true technical challenge. Why? Because lashes are dynamic they move, blink, and vary wildly between users. It takes more than just a dark lash overlay to create a convincing effect.

‍

If you're developing a virtual makeup experience or running a beauty brand looking to digitize mascara products, choosing the right SDK makes all the difference. I’ve gone hands-on with the leading platforms to figure out which ones nail the details so you don’t waste your time. Here’s what I found.

‍

What to look for in a good mascara SDK

• Eye Tracking That Doesn’t Lag: If the lashes shift around when someone blinks or moves slightly, it ruins the experience. The best SDKs I tested kept the mascara locked in place, even with head movement.

• Lash Effects That Actually Look Real: It’s not enough to darken a lash line. I looked for SDKs that could mimic volume, curl, and layering—like what you’d see with a real mascara wand.

• Handles Light Well: The good ones adjusted smoothly under changing light. Shiny lashes shouldn’t look like dull streaks in poor lighting.

• Separate Top & Bottom Lashes: Some try-on tools mess this up. I made sure the SDKs here can handle both.

• Product Integration: Linking a virtual try-on to a real mascara SKU? Huge win for brands.

• Works Across Devices: Whether on iPhone, Android, or browser, the SDK needs to run smoothly everywhere.

‍

1. GlamAR 

‍

GlamAR's mascara virtual try-on is fast and convenient, optimized for speed, simplicity, and real world outcome. It operates in the browser, allowing the customers to try the products on themselves first before purchasing them. While testing this feature, I observed that the mascara try-on remained stable even with movement. No professional training is required to maximize the potential of these features with GlamAR.

‍

For those beauty companies looking to add a fast and trustworthy and easy try-on feature on their product pages or campaigns, GlamAR offers an incredibly convenient solution with no loss in visual quality. The lash styles are preset, which makes it easier for users to try on. I switched between a few types. While some were subtle, others were a bit more defined. The changes were quick without any weird transition effects.

‍

Even on mobile, it held up better than I expected. This software stood out to me the most. It has a simple setup process and is extremely easy to use. The virtual try-ons are accurate and stable. The mascara try-on is easy to navigate and offers multiple patterns and colors for users to try. Users can try on mascara products by using a live camera, a model, or uploading a picture.

‍

Features:

• No app needed: It runs straight in the browser. No downloads, no login pop-ups—users can try it instantly whenever they’re ready.

• Preloaded lash styles: It comes with a solid set of lash looks you can just pick and use. No need to build from scratch.

• Before and after: One tap shows the difference with and without mascara, making the effect super easy to understand and compare.

• Simple tweaks: You can lightly adjust lash length and fullness depending on the kind of product you're showcasing—whether it’s natural or bold.

• Quick to set up: Getting it live doesn’t require a heavy setup. It’s straightforward and doesn’t slow down your team.

‍

{{component="/internal/widgets"}}

‍

2. YouCam by Perfect Corp

‍

Perfect Corp was one of the first SDKs I tried. Their name comes up everywhere in the AR beauty space, and they've worked with so many big brands that the bar was already high in my head. Thankfully, they didn’t disappoint.

‍

What stood out right away was how smooth and realistic their mascara rendering felt. The lashes didn’t look like a painted-on filter—they had depth, and shape, and moved naturally when I blinked or looked around. And it adapted really well to different eye shapes, too, which is rare.

‍

Even small things felt polished—like the way it handled subtle curl or volumizing effects, depending on the style I selected. It didn’t just “darken” the lashes; it built texture and density the way a real mascara wand would. Everything about it felt clean, consistent, and surprisingly realistic across lighting and camera angles.

‍

Features:

• 3D lash simulation: The lashes didn’t feel fake or flat. They had some shape, moved a little with my face, and actually looked real once they settled.

• Blink detection & accuracy: I blinked a bunch and moved around just to check—the mascara didn’t slide or glitch. It stayed in place the whole time.

• Natural curl & lift: You can tell the difference between styles. Some look more curled or lifted; others are more length-focused.

• Upper and lower lash support: Both lash lines showed up properly. Nothing weird or messy—lower lashes actually looked neat, which is rare.

• Real product match: It shows you the actual mascara being used, not just some random effect. Makes it easier for users to know what they're trying and what to buy.

‍

3. ModiFace

‍

ModiFace has been around for a while, and with L’Oréal backing it, I expected the mascara simulation to be top-tier. And to be honest, it really delivered. What impressed me most wasn’t the flashiness—it was the attention to detail. The lashes didn’t just get darker—they had shape, subtle tapering, and a softness that felt really natural on camera.

‍

I tested it with and without other makeup layers, and the mascara still held its definition. Even when paired with eyeliner or eyeshadow, the lashes stood out without looking fake or clumpy. The curl looked realistic, not exaggerated like a lot of AR filters tend to do. It felt like something you could actually wear.

‍

The tracking was clean, and the lash placement adjusted as I moved. I even tested it in lower light just to see how it reacted—and it stayed stable. I could see this being used in a polished, high-end digital beauty counter without anything feeling off.

‍

Features:

• Natural lash tapering: The ends of the lashes thin out gently, giving them a softer, more realistic finish.

• Clean integration with other eye makeup: Mascara stands out even when combined with liner or shadow.

• Lash lift and curl simulation: This feature adds visible curl without looking stiff or overly dramatic.

• Responsive movement tracking: Lashes stay in place even while blinking or shifting angle.

• Real product sync: Lets you link virtual mascara shades to actual product SKUs directly.

‍

4. Banuba

‍

Banuba was one of the SDKs I didn’t expect to impress me as much as it did. I’ve used tools with great face tracking before, but this one handled lashes better than most. The mascara effect felt stable right from the start—no shifting, no awkward floating above the lash line. Even when I moved closer to the camera or turned my face slightly, the effect stayed where it should.

‍

What I appreciated most was how balanced it looked. It wasn’t trying too hard to be dramatic. The lashes had enough volume and depth to be noticeable, but not so much that it felt overdone. It gave that natural, clean kind of mascara look that most real users want to try on.

‍

I also ran it in different lighting to see if the lash clarity dropped—and it didn’t. Banuba clearly put effort into making something that just works—fast, clean, and reliable even without perfect lighting or a pro setup.

‍

Features:

• Lashes stayed put: I moved, blinked, and tilted my head—the lashes didn’t shift at all. They stayed right where they were supposed to.

• Didn’t feel overdone: The effect was there, but it didn’t scream fake. It actually looked like something I’d wear on a normal day.

• Quick to respond: There was zero lag. As soon as I opened my camera, it worked—even on my older phone.

• Held up in different lighting: I tried it near a window with just daylight, and the lashes still looked clean and clear.

• Easy to tweak the look: I could adjust the style depending on my mood—more curl one minute, softer lashes the next.

‍

5. DeepAR

DeepAR was solid. I didn’t need perfect lighting or the latest phone to make it work—it just loaded fast and stayed in place. What stood out first was how well it tracked my eyes. I blinked, tilted my head, even leaned in a bit, and the lashes didn’t shift or float. That’s rare.

‍

The lash styling was more toned down than some others I tested, which honestly made it feel more wearable. I tried a softer, lifted look and then switched to something a little fuller, and both looked clean. Not exaggerated, not pixelated—just neat.

‍

It handled the lash curve nicely too without turning it into a weird eyeliner effect like some filters tend to do.I also didn’t have to fight the lighting. I tested it near a window on a cloudy day, and everything still looked sharp. The lashes held their shape and didn’t fade or flatten out. 

‍

Features:

• Doesn’t shift with movement: The mascara stays accurately placed on the lash line—even with blinks or head turns.

• ‍Natural styling: Lashes look defined and lifted without feeling fake or overly glossy.

• Instant tracking: There's no lag—it just works, even on mid-range devices.

• No lighting fuss: Effects hold up without a studio setup or perfect angles.

• Style flexibility: You can simulate curl, fullness, or light definition depending on the product.

‍

6. Visage technologies 

‍

I went into testing Visage with zero expectations—it’s not a flashy brand, and most people in beauty AR don’t bring it up first. But it turned out to be one of the most technically clean SDKs I tried. Everything just worked—no glitches, no weird lash hovering, and definitely no lag. It may not have had as many dramatic styling options, but what it did, it did really well.

‍

The mascara effect was subtle and sharp. The lashes were well aligned, not overdone, and felt like a good match for brands aiming for realism over glamour. The SDK picked up on blinking and head movement without the lashes slipping out of place. Even under uneven lighting, the definition stayed clear, which says a lot about how tightly the rendering engine is tuned.

‍

What I liked most? It felt low maintenance. I didn’t have to mess around with extra settings to get it to work or look good. For developers or beauty brands who just want something solid and plug-and-play, Visage actually delivers.

‍

Features:

• Precise lash alignment: Lashes stay right where they should—even during fast blinks or turns.

• Subtle, wearable effect: Gives clean definition without going dramatic or artificial.

• Responsive tracking: Adjusts instantly to face movement without any drift.

• Low-light stability: The lash shape holds up even in uneven or dim lighting.

• Lightweight performance: Runs smoothly with minimal setup or device strain.

‍

7. Tencent RTC 

‍

Tencent’s beauty effects toolkit isn’t as widely marketed, but I was genuinely surprised by how well it handled mascara rendering. The lash effect locked on fast and didn’t move around or jitter, even when I tested it on mid-range phones. It felt light, quick, and stable.

‍

What stood out most was how detailed the lashes looked in motion. There was a soft curl built in, and even as I blinked or shifted slightly, the lashes kept their definition without smudging into the eyelid. It had that polished, wearable finish that feels right for daily-use mascara.

‍

It’s also one of the more developer-friendly SDKs I’ve tested—smooth to integrate and not too heavy on resources. It works best for apps looking for subtle, functional beauty filters that still feel refined.

‍

Features:

• Fast, stable lash tracking: The lashes attach instantly and stay perfectly aligned, even during quick eye movement or blinking. I didn’t need to recalibrate once.

• Natural curl with soft lift: The simulation gives a clean, upward lash curve that mimics what you'd get from a single swipe of a light mascara—no stiffness, no clumps.

• Clear lashes in motion: Whether I turned toward the side or blinked repeatedly, the lash detail didn’t blur or dissolve into the eyelid. That kind of rendering control really shows.

• Lightweight SDK performance: I tested it on both high-end and budget phones—it loaded fast and didn’t cause lag or heating, which is a huge plus for global apps.

• Good layering with other effects: I tried adding eyeliner and shimmer shadow on top, and the mascara effect still popped without blending into the background or looking muddy.

‍

8. FaceAR 

‍

FaceAR is one of those SDKs that doesn’t always get talked about in the beauty AR space, but it should. I went into testing it with no real expectations—and honestly, it held up. The lash rendering kicked in quickly, and what I noticed right away was how tightly the mascara effect stuck to the lash line. Even when I blinked or moved closer to the camera, it didn’t slip or glitch out.

‍

It handled soft glam really well. The lashes had a clean curve to them without looking stiff or artificial. I tried it under natural lighting first, then added a harsh ring light just to see if anything broke down—but the lashes kept their shape and texture across both. Even small movements like squinting or glancing sideways didn’t throw it off.

‍

The SDK itself feels optimized for real-world usage. It plays nicely with other makeup elements like shadow or liner. It’s not overly dramatic, but for brands that want something realistic and polished, this actually checks a lot of boxes.

‍

Features: 

• No lash sliding—even during tiny eye shifts: I moved my eyes around without turning my head, and the lashes didn’t budge even a little.

• The curl looked like my real lashes on a good day: Not dramatic, not flat—just a soft lift that felt believable.

• Lighting didn’t mess it up: I tried it near a bright screen and in softer light, and the lash detail stayed clear without looking washed out.

• It kept up with squints and half-blinks: Even quick little movements didn’t confuse the tracking. No jitter, no weird lag.

• Didn’t mess with my eyeliner: I layered on a heavy wing to test overlap, and the mascara still held its own without bleeding into it.

‍

9. Artifutech

‍

Artifutech isn’t one of the loud names in AR right now, but I was genuinely curious to see how it handled something as delicate as mascara — and I’m glad I tested it. The lash tracking was surprisingly firm. I didn’t need to stay perfectly still to get it to align. I blinked, looked sideways, even leaned closer to the screen, and it didn’t throw the effect off.

‍

What stood out was how crisp the lashes looked. Not overly sharpened or darkened, just detailed enough to feel real. The lift had a gentle curve to it, and the lashes tapered off naturally at the ends. It didn’t try to overstyle or bulk them up too much, which I actually preferred for more subtle looks.

‍

It worked especially well on bare skin — when there wasn’t a bunch of other makeup to support the effect, the mascara still looked clean and intentional. Artifutech’s SDK feels like something smaller brands could easily build with. The rendering wasn’t heavy, the integration didn’t need a ton of tweaking, and it stayed consistent across devices during testing.

‍

Features: 

• Didn’t need to stay perfectly still: I moved around, blinked, turned slightly — and the lashes stayed exactly where they should.
  

• Lashes looked clean, not overdone: It added just enough depth to make a difference, without turning it into a dramatic look.
  

• The tips faded out naturally: I looked close to check—there were no chunky ends or sharp cutoffs.
  

• Looked good even without other makeup: I tested it bare-faced and the mascara still looked intentional, not like it needed backup.
  

• Still looked smooth on slower phones: I ran it on a budget Android too, and the lashes didn’t glitch or lag even once.

‍

10. Algoface

‍

AlgoFace isn’t flashy, but when I tried their SDK, I could tell right away that it was built with precision in mind. The mascara effect launched quickly and stayed glued to the lash line without needing any face adjustment or a tap-to-align kind of setup. The rendering was clean, and I didn’t see any lag—even when I moved a bit closer to the camera or blinked a few times rapidly.

‍

What I liked most was the clarity of the lashes. They weren’t too dark or smudgy, which happens with some filters that try to mimic volume by just thickening the lash area. Here, each lash line felt intentional. I could see a visible difference in lift when switching between styles, and the curl felt more like what you'd get with a lengthening wand than a glam lash strip.

‍

It also felt light on the device. I didn’t get any heat or slowdown on my phone, and the effect didn’t crash when I tested it in a browser environment. Definitely feels like something developers can work with without babysitting.

‍

Features:

• It picked up my lash line instantly: I didn’t have to pause, tap, or adjust anything—it just locked on and stayed there.

• ‍Curl looked like real mascara, not fake lashes: The lashes had lift, but it still looked like something I’d wear day to day.

• Edges stayed clean the whole time: Even in bad lighting or weird angles, the lashes didn’t blur or smudge out.

• Worked great in-browser too: I didn’t need to install anything—opened it on Chrome and the effect ran without stuttering.

• Didn’t mess with my skin tone or under-eyes: The SDK focused only on lashes, so the rest of my face stayed untouched and natural.
  ‍

{{boost="/internal/widgets"}}  

‍

How I evaluated these SDKs

I didn’t just go by what the product pages said—I took time to try each SDK myself. I ran them on different devices, from my own phone to a basic Android and even in-browser, just to see how they’d hold up with real movement, lighting, and different eye shapes.

‍

What I paid attention to most was how the lashes behaved: did they stick to the lash line or drift? Did the curl look like actual mascara or just a blurry black filter? I blinked, looked around, layered them with virtual eyeliner or eyeshadow — basically, I tried to break them. Some looked great when still but couldn’t handle blinking or shifting. I immediately ruled those out.

‍

I also noted how quickly the SDKs responded, whether they ran smoothly in-browser, and if the lashes adapted to lighting changes. A few even let me connect virtual looks to actual mascara shades, which is huge for brands. I tested these the way a developer or brand would—with real user behavior in mind, not just pretty screenshots. The ones in this list held up under pressure.

‍

Benefits and limitations 

Benefits: 

• Helps users feel more sure before buying: When I saw how a mascara looked on my own lashes, it felt way more convincing than just seeing a swatch or a model. It takes the guesswork out of online shopping.

• Lets brands connect AR looks to actual products: A lot of these SDKs make it easy to link the virtual effect to the exact mascara being sold—no confusion, no guesswork.

• You can build different lash styles, not just one effect: Some days I wanted soft, clean lashes; other times I tested bolder curl and volume—and the SDKs adapted without needing new code each time.

• No clashing with other eye makeup: I tried these on top of virtual eyeliner and eyeshadow, and the mascara didn’t get lost or overlap weirdly in any way.

• Lashes showed up instantly: Even when I blinked or moved my head, the effect stayed smooth. No delays, no freezing.

• Worked on all the devices I tested: I didn’t need to tweak anything when switching from phone to browser—the SDKs just ran without making me do extra setup.

‍

Limitations: 

• Some SDKs didn’t get the lash line quite right: Especially on hooded eyes or uneven lash shapes, a few effects looked slightly off unless I stayed at a perfect angle.

• Lighting changed everything: In natural daylight, the lashes looked clean, but in yellow or low light, some styles either faded too much or looked overly dark.

• Glasses threw off the effect in a few cases: When I wore specs, a couple of SDKs either glitched or couldn’t track my lashes properly—especially if there was glare on the lens.

• Lower-end phones struggled a bit: On an older Android I tested, the mascara took a second to load and sometimes jittered if I moved too quickly.

• Some styles looked overdone: Not all SDKs got the “real mascara” balance right. A few gave me lashes that looked more like a heavy beauty filter than an actual product someone would buy.

{{boost="/internal/widgets"}}  

‍

Conclusion

Mascara might look simple, but getting it right in AR is pretty tough. It’s not just slapping on some black color—you need lashes that have real shape and curl and move naturally when you blink or look around. When I tested these SDKs, I wasn’t satisfied with just something that looked good in pictures. I wanted it to actually feel like real mascara.

‍

A few of them came close. But there were only a handful that delivered the kind of polish I’d actually want to put into a product. GlamAR, for me, stood out the most. It didn’t just look good in ideal lighting—it worked in real-world conditions, across different faces, without me needing to adjust a thing.

‍

That’s the level you should look for. Because in beauty, details matter. If you’re building something meant to be used and trusted, the SDK you choose has to hold up beyond the demo screen. And when it does, it changes everything.