Review: MAC 109 vs. Sigma F05

I own a lot of Sigma brushes I will admit that, I was slow on the Sigma-wagon but once they started offering individual brushes for sale on their website I went full speed ahead. I have posted numerous reviews of their brushes here and have tried to use MAC comparison pictures whenever possible (what Sigma became famous for). I do not own a lot of MAC brushes so I apologize I cannot compare them all like you see on some websites. But I do my best to give as accurate comparisons as possible. Today I will compare the MAC 109 to it's Sigma counterpart the F05. These two are "small contour" brushes, they are meant to be used as contouring, but many in the youtube beauty community use them for liquid foundation application, myself included. I think the MAC 109 is a neat brush, the shape is really unique and I hadn't seen any company do a shape like this until the Sigma one. The MAC 109 sells for $38.50CAD and the Sigma F05 is $14USD. But how similar are they really?

From reading reviews, this Sigma brush is supposed to be one of the closest to the MAC, so I was really curious to do this review myself. Alright, laid here side by side, can you tell me which is which? You probably can if you own the MAC 109 yourself. The Sigma F05 is on the left, MAC 109 on the right (same in the picture above too). The MAC 109 is considerably more dense, round and domed, while the Sigma has a more rectangular, flatter top. I suspect this is because MAC user laser cutters in their brush manufacturing and can get a more precise shape.

A closer look here at the brushes, you can really see the shape difference. Now keep in mind my MAC 109 may not be the same as yours and the Sigma brushes do tend to vary a bit too. I find my MAC is much more rounded than other people's I've seen, I like that about it though. I've had my MAC one for several years, it has remained that same shape, I have not had much shedding issues with it earlier (this brush tends to shed a lot). The Sigma one did not shed much either, in washing a bit here and there.

And from the top view here, the right one (MAC 109) is slightly fuller and larger, bristles do not splay out as much. The MAC one is also slightly softer on the face. But not much difference right?

Looking at the handles and size here, they are pretty much the same length, the Sigma handle is slightly thicker. I asked my bf to examine the two and he mentioned that the MAC one looks better made, fuller bristles, the ferrule looks more expensive and pinched nicer, MAC is slightly heavier too. But you are paying almost twice three times the price for the MAC one, so I would honestly hope there would be a difference.

These brushes definitely function the same way. I want to say that since the Sigma one is less dense and more tapered it would be better for actual contouring, which is what it's intended for, and using cream products such as cream blush. And the MAC one since it is more domed and rounded is better at liquid foundation, it can swirl well and tap the product. I think Sigma did a good job here overall of trying to duplicate this brush though.

Have do you own either brush and how do you think they compare?