This species is distinguished from all its congeners, except Hyphessobrycon cachimbensis, H. cyanotaenia, H. fernandezi, H. melanostichos, H. nigricinctus, H. paucilepis, H. petricolus, H. piranga, H. psittacus, H. scholzei, H. sovichthys, H. stegemanni, H. taphorni, H. tuyensis and H. vilmae by having a well-defined and relatively narrow dark midlateral stripe on body, extending from head to the middle caudal-fin rays (vs. no well-defined longitudinal stripe or stripe wider than the orbit, or stripe starting approximately vertically through the origin of the dorsal fin or stripe blurred posteriorly); differs from the aforementioned species, except H. cachimbensis, H. cyanotaenia, H. melanostichos, H. nigricinctus, H. petricolus, by having a humeral blotch

(vs. no humeral blotch absent); differs from H. cachimbensis, H. cyanotaenia by having the distal profile of the anal fin falcate in males (vs. approximately straight or convex) and from <>H. cachimbensis, H. petricolus, H. nigricinctus by having 13-16 branched anal-fin rays (vs. 17-26); differs further from H. cyanotaenia by lacking concentration of black pigmentation on longest rays of dorsal, pelvic, and anal fins (vs. pigmentation present); differs from H. melanostichos (the most similar congener) by having 11 or 12 horizontal scale rows around caudal peduncle (vs. 14), fewer branched pelvic-fin rays 6 (vs. 7), humeral blotch wider than

deep, with pigmentation much more intense than the dark midlateral band, with well-defined edges (vs. humeral blotch deeper than wide, with pigmentation similar to the dark midlateral band, without well-defined edges); differs from H. melanostichos by having 13-15 (mode 14, rarely 16 (only 3 of 30 specimens), branched anal-fin rays (vs. 16–18, mode 16) (Ref. 128640).