How a face with African ancestry scores across 17 structural metrics. Descriptive anthropometry, not a hierarchy.
Beauty is multi-ethnic. Coetzee, Greeff, Stephen and Perrett (2014) specifically studied Black African and European preferences and found neither population scored higher than the other in aggregate. This page describes the distribution.
17 metrics · Multi-ethnic norms · Free · No signup
Free score · $14.99 unlocks population-appropriate report
Legacy face-scoring tools were calibrated on European-dominant datasets. The nasal index, lip thickness, and midface projection thresholds were set against one population's mean. When a wider nasal base, fuller lips, or different midface projection from a Black African face is scored against those thresholds, the metric reads as a deviation from a norm that was never meant to be universal.
The published African and African American craniofacial work (Porter and Olson 2001 on African American facial proportions; Coetzee et al. 2014 on Black African composites; Farkas et al. 2005 multi-ethnic atlas) documents distributions that diverge meaningfully on a handful of specific metrics. A useful report shows both percentiles. The universal percentile answers where you sit across all populations; the population-appropriate percentile answers where you sit relative to faces with similar ancestry. Both are descriptive; the gap between them is itself diagnostic.
The 17 metrics themselves are universal geometry. Facial thirds, fifths, FWHR, canthal tilt, jawline ratio, lip ratios, philtrum length, eye aspect ratio, brow-to-eye distance, nasal index, midface ratio, and the rest are defined the same way regardless of population. The reference distribution changes; the measurement does not.
Published African nasal-width-to-height norms sit in a distinct sub-range from European norms. The population-appropriate percentile prevents the European mean from being treated as a universal target.
Average upper and lower lip thickness sits higher than European norms (Porter and Olson 2001). The published African distribution places this at the population mean, so the lip metric reads at average percentile against the appropriate reference.
Average midface projection in published African American craniofacial work sits in a distinct sub-range. The score carries this as descriptive percentile rather than as a deviation.
Lower-face height relative to total facial height clusters in a distinct sub-range. Carried as descriptive percentile against population-appropriate norms.
Average bizygomatic prominence sits in a distinct range. The published African norms record this as the population mean rather than as a deviation from European baselines.
Hairline position and brow density shift how the brow-to-eye distance metric reads. The score treats these as structural signal rather than as styling artifacts.
The single most common failure mode for face-scoring tools on Black faces is landmark mis-placement on darker skin under poor lighting. The underlying detection model is the variable that matters. We use a 68-landmark model trained on cross-population datasets explicitly to reduce this failure mode. The result is that landmark placement is accurate on darker skin under even, diffuse light, which is the same lighting condition that produces a confident read on any skin tone.
If the detector returns a low-confidence read, the fix is the photo, not the model. Front-lit, even, diffuse light avoids the under-exposed shadow regions that legacy face tools choke on. The model itself is not the limiter; the input is.
Free score is the headline. Population-appropriate context is the plan.
The $14.99 Looksmax Report scores all 17 metrics with both universal and African-distribution percentiles where validated norms exist, identifies your two weakest metrics, and writes a soft-tissue-first plan.
Free, instant, private. 17 metrics with population-appropriate percentile context in the paid report.
17 metrics · Multi-ethnic norms · Photos auto-deleted
All free. All private. All instant.
Is your smile genuine or forced?
How close are your proportions to φ?
AI attractiveness analysis
Rate my face 1–10
How attractive am I?
How symmetrical is your face?
Which photo gets more matches?
Best photo for LinkedIn
Your glow-up score