
Landmark alignment: 99%
Eye-width balance: 99.9%
A NUMBER IS ONLY THE START
Your free face rating gives you the measurements. A report connects those details and turns them into suggestions you can actually use.
Read an example report Measured synthetic adult sample · AI styling concepts
Landmark alignment: 99%
Eye-width balance: 99.9%
In this example, both eye widths are similar. The outer corners sit slightly higher than the inner corners. Pose and expression still matter when comparing photos.

44 measurements, one styling concept, six hairstyle images and a four-week plan. See the actual format in the full sample.
YOUR CHOICE, AFTER YOUR FREE RESULT
Two optional reports. One-time prices. Your free score and measurements stay available either way.
Your first look at the numbers.
Understand your rating and know where to start.
Understand your features, see your options and build a daily plan.
Start with the 72-Hour Report and upgrade to four weeks later for $10.00. Same photo, same report — no second full-price purchase.
Paid reports are not open yet. Explore the examples while we prepare the service.
HOW IT WORKS
Start free. A full report is always optional.
Choose a front-facing photo. The free analyzer checks it right in your browser.
See your rating, explore all 10 measurements, and download a share card. No sign-in needed.
Enter your email for a private return link. Explore the preview immediately, then choose a paid report only if you want more.
UNDERSTAND THE RESULT
The golden ratio is approximately 1.618. A face contains many possible distances, so a “golden ratio face” result depends on which endpoints someone chooses. FaceRater shows its actual height-to-width and feature-width ratios instead of hiding them behind a single golden-ratio beauty percentage. The mesh forehead point is not the hairline, and a frontal photograph cannot measure depth accurately.
Read the exact scoring methodYOUR QUESTIONS, EXPLAINED
It is a face-proportion calculator with visible landmark definitions. You can compare the displayed ratios with the 1.618 reference, but FaceRater does not convert closeness to that number into a beauty percentage. A useful comparison must name both distances: changing the endpoints changes the ratio.
Check which forehead, cheek, chin and feature points each test uses. Hairline-to-chin height is not the same distance as mesh-forehead-to-chin height, and a front view cannot capture the depth of a profile. Use matching endpoints and photos before comparing results. Our measurement definitions make those choices visible.
No. Matching one chosen proportion to 1.618 is not a validated universal test of beauty. Different faces, expressions and styles work in different ways. Treat the ratios as descriptive information rather than a target you must meet.
The free test includes mesh face height to cheek width, eye-centre spacing, nose width, mouth width and jaw width relative to cheek width. The complete sample report shows a larger set of clearly labeled 2D measurements across seven regions. Each value states its endpoints and denominator.
Tools may use the hairline, top of the forehead mesh, eyebrows or another starting point. They may also normalize by cheekbone, jaw or image width. Camera angle adds more variation. Compare definitions and drawn endpoints before comparing the numbers.
No. Our current face-rating score is based on left–right landmark alignment. The face ratios are displayed separately. We explain the golden-ratio search term here because it is often confused with an objective attractiveness formula.
The landmark model does not reliably locate the actual hairline, so the free test does not label its forehead mesh measurement as a precise anatomical upper third. A report can show normalized vertical landmark positions while clearly explaining that limitation.
They can help describe the visible outline when comparing hairstyle length, side volume, fringe or collars. They do not determine a single correct haircut. A useful styling recommendation pairs an observable proportion with a reversible idea and a tradeoff.