How a face with European ancestry scores across 17 structural metrics. Descriptive anthropometry, not a hierarchy.
Beauty is multi-ethnic. Published cross-cultural research finds no population scores higher than another in aggregate. This page describes the distribution within European ancestry, not a ranking against other ethnicities.
17 metrics · Farkas European norms · Free · No signup
Free score · $14.99 unlocks European sub-population context
The phrase Caucasian facial features sounds like it points to a single distribution. The published European craniofacial work shows otherwise. The Farkas international comparison (Farkas et al. 2005) documents measurable variance between Northern European, Mediterranean, Eastern European, and other regional sub-populations on nasal index, palpebral fissure width, midface projection, and lower-face proportion. Treating all European ancestry as one mean would lose this variance the same way treating all populations as one mean would lose cross-population variance.
The 17-metric report carries both the universal percentile (cross-population) and the European-distribution percentile (within-Caucasian, drawing on sub-population norms where validated datasets exist). The gap between them tells you whether the metric you are looking at is doing the heavy lifting against the general distribution or just against your sub-population.
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.
Northern European and Mediterranean nasal-width-to-height norms sit in distinct sub-ranges (Farkas et al. 2005). The population-appropriate percentile carries this variance rather than collapsing to a single European mean.
Average eye aperture width sits in a documented Caucasian sub-range, with measurable variance between Northern, Eastern, and Mediterranean European populations. The score reads this against the closest sub-population norm where available.
Average midface projection sits higher than several non-European reference samples but with internal variance across European sub-populations. Carried as descriptive percentile rather than as a universal target.
Lower-face height relative to total facial height clusters in a documented sub-range with regional variance. Reads against the European-distribution norm in the paid report.
Skin tone is not a structural metric in the composite. The score does not reward or penalize lighter skin; it measures geometry. The texture-and-tone layer in the paid report describes what the camera is seeing without ranking against population norms.
Hair color and density shift how the brow-to-eye distance metric reads (lighter brow hair often under-represents brow density to the detector). The score treats this as a measurement artifact and carries a confidence range rather than a single percentile when brow hair is very light.
Most face tools that score against European norms do so implicitly. The reference distribution is buried in the model and the user has no way to know what they are being scored against. We publish the norms openly. The Farkas atlas is the underlying source; the sub-population datasets are cited where they are used.
Open norms make the score auditable. If your population-appropriate percentile and universal percentile diverge sharply, you can check the underlying norms and see whether your specific sub-population is well-represented in the European-distribution dataset. If it is not, the universal percentile is the more honest read.
Free score is the headline. Sub-population context is the plan.
The $14.99 Looksmax Report scores all 17 metrics with both universal and European-distribution percentiles, identifies your two weakest metrics, and writes a soft-tissue-first plan.
Free, instant, private. 17 metrics with sub-population percentile context in the paid report.
17 metrics · Farkas European 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