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 published norms make this concrete. Farkas's 1994 atlas plus the 2005 international comparison record mean nasal index ranging from roughly 64 in Northern European adult-male samples to roughly 69 in Southern Italian samples (Ferrario et al. on Italian craniofacial data). Mean palpebral fissure inclination varies similarly across Scandinavian, Slavic, and Mediterranean reference groups. Treating all European ancestry as a single mean drops between five and eight percentile points of resolution for users whose sub-population sits at either tail of the European distribution.
That is why the dual-percentile read matters even within the Caucasian category. A face with Sicilian or Levantine ancestry scored against a Czech/German-dominant European mean reads as a deviation; scored against the closer Ferrario Italian norms, the same face reads as the population mean. The interpretation layer changes; the measurement does not. The free composite shows the universal percentile because that is the cleanest cross-population read. The paid report adds the closest sub-population read where the validated dataset exists.
The 17 metrics themselves are universal geometry — nasal index is a width-over-height ratio regardless of which atlas you compare it against, canthal tilt is a degree measurement regardless of sub-population. The reference distribution choice changes the percentile but not the underlying number. The published Farkas-family datasets we draw from cover Czech, German, Italian, Hungarian, Greek, and several Levantine samples; the sub-population the report quotes is the one closest to your declared ancestry, with the universal read always present as the cross-check.
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
Hand-picked from 90+ tests, guides, and audits.
Beauty markers and looksmax priorities
EthnicityBeauty markers and looksmax priorities
EthnicityBeauty markers and looksmax priorities
EthnicityPriority moves for East / South Asian features
DatingRank your 6 photos by predicted match rate
Pro / LinkedInScore your LinkedIn / pro photo