Looksmaxxing Test
17 metrics · AI glow-up plan
Tests
Smile Analyzer
Genuine vs fake smile · instant AI read
Compare Photos
Which photo gets more matches?
Golden Ratio Test
Facial proportions vs ideal
Face Metrics
measured in the looksmaxxing test
Explore
QOVES is a clinical-authority face analysis consultancy with a surgeon-led brand identity, paid reports, and a consultation funnel built around pre-treatment aesthetic scoping. RealSmile is a free, evidence-cited AI face audit that returns 10 geometric metrics with population percentiles in roughly 10 seconds on the free tier, with peer-reviewed priors published openly and zero clinical or treatment recommendations. The two products are not direct substitutes: QOVES sits at the premium-consultation, treatment-funnel end of the market, and RealSmile sits at the free, anonymous, self-audit end. This page is the honest, side-by-side comparison: a 16-row decision matrix that covers pricing, methodology citations, audit vs treatment funnel, surgeon credentials, photo handling, signup gate, monetization, founder transparency, and refund posture, an FAQ that links 1:1 to the FAQ schema below, and a "when each tool wins" section so you can pick the one that matches the question you are actually trying to answer.
Bottom line up front
QOVES is a clinical-authority consultancy with surgeon-led methodology and premium consultation pricing; the deliverable is a written report and a treatment-scoping conversation. RealSmile is a free, evidence-cited AI face audit with peer-reviewed priors (PMC2781897, PMC2826778, PMID 16313657), on-device inference on desktop, and an opt-in paid ladder for multi-photo dating audits. RealSmile is explicitly not a clinical service and does not offer surgical advice, in-person consultations, or treatment recommendations. If you want a clinician to scope pre-treatment options, QOVES is built for that. If you want a free, anonymous self-audit with a published methodology and a per-metric glow-up plan, RealSmile is built for that.
The fastest way to choose between two tools that share a category but not a use case is to line them up across the dimensions that actually drive a buying decision. Below is an 18-row head-to-head covering pricing, methodology citations, audit vs treatment funnel, surgeon credentials, treatment recommendations, photo handling, anonymous use, sub-metric depth, improvement plan format, PDF deliverable, methodology transparency, free tier clarity, score reproducibility, monetization model, update frequency, founder transparency, use-case fit, and refund posture. Where we are confident about a QOVES fact (clinical authority framing, surgeon-led brand, paid consultation funnel, treatment orientation) we say so. Where we are not, we use hedged framing such as "Compared to clinical-authority face-analysis services" or "We do not have verified internal documentation on QOVES" rather than fabricate a competitor stat.
| Feature | RealSmile | QOVES |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Free 10-metric scan; opt-in $29 / $39 / $99 / $149 paid ladder; one-time payments only | Premium consultation pricing typical of clinical-authority face analysis; paid report and consultation funnel; we do not have verified internal documentation on current tier pricing |
| Methodology citations | Inline PMC2781897 (Little/Jones/DeBruine 2011), PMC2826778 (Carre/McCormick 2008), PMID 16313657 (Willis/Todorov 2006); full list at /research/citations | Clinical-authority framing on the public site; surgeon-led methodology referenced in marketing copy; we do not have verified internal documentation on a public peer-reviewed citation list bound to the report layer |
| Audit vs treatment funnel | Self-audit only; per-metric percentile + glow-up plan; explicitly not a clinical or treatment funnel | Clinical / treatment funnel; reports oriented toward pre-procedure scoping and aesthetic-treatment recommendations |
| Surgeon and clinician credentials | No surgeons, no clinicians, no in-house medical staff; RealSmile carves out as not-clinical by design | Surgeon-led brand identity; clinician layer is a core part of the value proposition and the funnel |
| Treatment recommendations | No surgical, injectable, or treatment recommendations; advice is grooming, photography, posture, and habit-level only | Treatment-oriented recommendations are part of the report and consultation product |
| Photo handling / privacy | On-device inference on desktop through TensorFlow.js; photo never leaves the browser on the free tier | Photos submitted for clinical review by the QOVES team; we do not have verified internal documentation on retention windows or training-data reuse |
| Anonymous use vs consultation booking | Fully anonymous on the free 10-metric scan; no email capture, no account, no consultation booking | Consultation-style intake typical of clinical funnels; submission flow tied to the report deliverable |
| Number of metrics surfaced | 10 named geometric metrics on free tier (canthal tilt, FWHR, jawline, symmetry, hunter eye, midface, philtrum, lip-to-chin, lower third, ogee curve); 17-metric breakdown on the $49 audit | Report-style narrative output with multiple aesthetic dimensions assessed by a clinician; sub-metric count depends on the report tier and is not a standardized public number |
| Improvement plan format | Ranked, per-metric glow-up plan tied to specific percentiles; 5-page PDF on the $49 audit | Written clinical-aesthetic recommendations including treatment options where relevant; report length and depth vary by tier |
| PDF report deliverable | 5-page personalized PDF on the $49 audit; identity-locked AI glow-up preview on the $99 tier; print-friendly /pdf route | Written report deliverable typical of consultation-led products; format and length tier-dependent and we do not have verified internal documentation on current page counts |
| Methodology transparency | Public methodology page at /research/citations with peer-reviewed priors; this comparison page links the priors inline | Brand methodology framed publicly through marketing and YouTube content; we do not have verified internal documentation on a versioned public methodology changelog tied to the report layer |
| Free tier clarity | Free 10-metric scan is the headline product; paid ladder is opt-in only and clearly labeled | Headline product is the paid report and consultation; free educational content lives on the YouTube channel rather than as a free per-user audit |
| Score reproducibility | Deterministic; same photo returns the same composite across sessions | Human-consultant layer introduces qualitative variance; reproducibility is not the design goal of a clinical review |
| AdSense / monetization model | No display ads; revenue from the $29 / $39 / $99 / $149 paid ladder only | Premium consultation revenue model; YouTube / educational content acts as a top-of-funnel for the paid report |
| Update frequency / freshness | Page dateModified 2026-05-04; methodology versioned at /research/citations | Brand activity visible on the YouTube channel; we do not have verified internal documentation on a public changelog or last-updated date for the report methodology |
| Founder and brand transparency | Public RealSmile Team byline, /reviews, /research/citations, methodology page, this comparison page | Public brand identity and clinician-led framing; team and operator details surfaced through the public site and channel |
| Use-case fit | Self-audit + photo improvement + dating-app lead-photo selection; explicitly not pre-treatment scoping | Pre-treatment clinical scoping and aesthetic-procedure planning; explicitly not a free self-audit tool |
| Refund window | 7-day refund on $49 / $99 paid tiers | Refund posture varies by report tier and consultation contract; not a RealSmile-controlled window |
QOVES is shaped by clinical-authority distribution. The headline output is a paid report informed by a surgeon-led methodology, the secondary feature is a treatment-scoping conversation, and the experience is built around a consultation funnel that takes a user from curiosity into a pre-procedure decision space. That is a perfectly valid product, and for the pre-treatment scoping use case it is in many ways the right shape: a clinician layer adds qualitative judgment that purely geometric tools cannot fully replicate. The cost of that shape is access. Premium consultation pricing means most users never become QOVES users, and the funnel is built for users who are already considering an aesthetic procedure rather than users who simply want to know what their face is doing on a measurable scale.
RealSmile is shaped by free, evidence-cited self-audit distribution. The headline output is 10 geometric metrics with population percentiles published openly, the secondary feature is a ranked glow-up plan tied to those percentiles, and the experience is built around a desktop browser running TensorFlow.js on-device. Free users get the 10-metric scan, the percentile breakdown, and the ranked plan with no signup, no email capture, and no upgrade modal between them and the result. Paid users get an opt-in ladder, not a consultation: $29 for a single-photo deeper rank, $49 for the Premium Dating Photo Audit (up to 10 photos, 17 metrics each, lead-pick, delete-list, 5-page PDF), and $99 for the audit plus an identity-locked AI glow-up preview. The methodology is published openly at /research/citations with peer-reviewed priors including PMC2781897 (Little, Jones & DeBruine 2011) on symmetry and attractiveness, PMC2826778 (Carre & McCormick 2008) on facial width-to-height ratio, and PMID 16313657 (Willis & Todorov 2006) on the 100-millisecond first-impression window. RealSmile is explicitly not a clinical product, and we deliberately scope out of treatment recommendations, in-person consultations, and surgical advice.
It is worth stating this directly because category readers expect it. RealSmile does not offer surgical recommendations. RealSmile does not offer injectable or treatment recommendations. RealSmile does not offer in-person consultations. RealSmile does not have surgeons, clinicians, or licensed medical staff on the operating team. The advice in the free 10-metric scan and the paid audit is grooming, photography, posture, hairstyle, lighting, and habit-level only. If you want a clinician to scope pre-treatment options, evaluate facial harmony in a surgical context, or recommend specific aesthetic procedures, that is exactly the lane QOVES occupies and we do not. We are not pretending the surgeon layer is something we can replicate; we are pointing out that for users whose question is "what is my face doing on a measurable scale, and what can I change at the grooming and photography level," a free, evidence-cited self-audit is a better fit than a premium consultation funnel. Pick the tool that matches your actual question.
RealSmile publishes its methodology priors openly with NCBI / PubMed identifiers so any reader can pull the underlying paper and check the prior themselves. The three load-bearing citations on the per-metric layer are PMC2781897 (Little, Jones & DeBruine 2011 on facial attractiveness, symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism), PMC2826778 (Carre & McCormick 2008 on facial width-to-height ratio as a behavioral predictor), and PMID 16313657 (Willis & Todorov 2006 on first-impression formation in roughly 100 milliseconds). The full list lives at /research/citations and is versioned as new priors are added. Compared to clinical-authority face-analysis services, QOVES surfaces methodology through brand framing, marketing copy, and YouTube content rather than through a versioned public citation list bound to the per-report layer. We do not have verified internal documentation showing which papers, datasets, or weightings drive a specific QOVES report, so the methodology surface for QOVES is "trust the clinician brand" rather than "audit the priors." Both shapes are legitimate, and they appeal to different user types. For users who want to interrogate the priors behind a score, peer-reviewed citations are the cleaner read. For users who want a clinician to take responsibility for the interpretation, brand authority is the cleaner read.
QOVES is, by design, a service that requires you to submit photos. Clinical review needs to see the face. Compared to clinical-authority face-analysis services, QOVES processes the submitted images server-side with a human team in the review loop, and we do not have verified internal documentation on retention windows, third-party sharing, or training-data reuse. The privacy bar for QOVES users is the operator policy plus normal email and platform handling, which is the default posture for any consultation product. RealSmile structurally avoids that question on the free desktop tier by running the 10-metric scan entirely in your browser through TensorFlow.js, which means the photo never leaves your device unless you opt in to the paid audit. For most users this distinction is academic. For sensitive use cases (minors, professionals, anyone who would not be comfortable if a selfie somehow leaked from a server later), on-device inference is structurally stricter than a server-side flow, no matter how well-written the privacy policy is. The in-depth AI face report page shows the deliverable that the on-device scan produces, so privacy-cautious readers can see the output shape without uploading a photo first.
There are use cases where QOVES is genuinely the right pick, and the comparison should say so plainly. QOVES wins when you want a clinician to weigh in on pre-treatment options. The surgeon-led brand identity, the consultation funnel, and the treatment-orientation of the report are exactly the surface a user wants when their next step is potentially a procedure. RealSmile does not offer this and is not trying to. QOVES also wins when you want qualitative judgment that geometric measurement cannot fully replicate. Skin texture nuance, hairline pattern reading, facial harmony interpretation in a clinical context, and the kinds of subtle calls a trained eye can make are real value-adds, and they are why premium consultation pricing exists in the category. Finally, QOVES wins on educational depth in the public-content layer: the YouTube channel and long-form content are well-researched and useful, and they are a legitimate top-of-funnel that we are not competing with directly. If your question is "I am considering an aesthetic procedure and I want a surgeon-aware face read before I book a consult," QOVES is shaped for that question and RealSmile is not.
RealSmile is the better pick when your question is not a clinical question. The free 10-metric scan returns geometric metrics with population percentiles in roughly 10 seconds, and the methodology behind those metrics is published openly with peer-reviewed priors at /research/citations: PMC2781897 (Little, Jones & DeBruine 2011 on symmetry and attractiveness), PMC2826778 (Carre & McCormick 2008 on facial width-to-height ratio), and PMID 16313657 (Willis & Todorov 2006 on 100-millisecond first-impression formation). RealSmile wins on price: free is free, and the paid ladder is one-time and capped at $99 rather than a recurring premium consultation. RealSmile wins on anonymity: no signup, no email, no consultation booking, no funnel between the scan and the result. RealSmile wins on multi-photo dating audit: the $49 Premium Dating Photo Audit accepts up to 10 photos, scores 17 metrics on each, and returns a ranked lead-photo plus an explicit delete-list with bottom-ranked uploads called out by photo number, which is the deliverable that closes a "which Hinge or Tinder photo should I lead with" decision. RealSmile wins on reproducibility: the scoring layer is deterministic by design, so the same input photo returns the same composite across sessions, which is not the design goal of a human-clinician review. And RealSmile wins on transparency: a public RealSmile Team byline, /reviews, /research/citations, and a methodology changelog, plus a print-friendly /pdf route for the audit deliverable. For users who want to see what the deeper output looks like before paying anything, RealSmile publishes a comprehensive AI face report walkthrough showing the per-metric breakdown, percentile ranking, and glow-up plan that ships with every audit.
Different users want different things from a face tool, and the right pick depends on the question you are actually trying to answer. Here is a four-way self-routing breakdown.
Is QOVES a medical or clinical service?
QOVES presents itself as a clinical-authority face analysis consultancy with a surgeon-led methodology and a paid report and consultation funnel. The QOVES brand has been associated with cosmetic-aesthetic education content and treatment-oriented recommendations on the public site and YouTube channel. RealSmile is explicitly not a clinical service and does not offer surgical advice, in-person consultations, or treatment recommendations. RealSmile is a free, evidence-cited AI face audit that returns 10 geometric metrics with population percentiles and a self-improvement plan focused on grooming, photography, posture, and habit-level changes. If you want a clinician to scope pre-treatment options, that is QOVES territory by design; we deliberately do not operate in that lane.
How much does QOVES cost compared to RealSmile?
Compared to clinical-authority face analysis services, QOVES sits at the premium consultation end of the market: paid reports and consultations have historically been quoted in tiers ranging from a basic written report up to higher-priced treatment-scoping consultations, with the headline being a paid funnel rather than a free tier. We do not have verified internal documentation on current QOVES pricing tiers, so a user should treat any specific dollar number as a directional reference and check the QOVES site for the live price. RealSmile is freemium with a transparent ladder: the 10-metric scan at /looksmaxxing-test is free, and the opt-in paid ladder is $29 for a single-photo deeper rank, $49 for the Premium Dating Photo Audit (5-page personalized PDF, 17 metrics on each of up to 10 photos, lead-photo identification, delete-list, written improvement plan), and $99 for the audit plus an identity-locked AI glow-up preview. The two products are not priced at the same point because they are not the same product.
Does QOVES upload my photos? How does RealSmile compare on privacy?
QOVES is built around clinical review of submitted photos: by design, you submit images for the team to analyze, and the privacy bar is the operator policy plus normal email and platform handling. We do not have verified internal documentation on QOVES retention windows, training-data reuse, or third-party sharing, so the privacy posture for QOVES users is "trust the operator." RealSmile structurally avoids that question on the free desktop tier by running the 10-metric scan entirely in your browser through TensorFlow.js, which means the photo never leaves your device unless you opt in to the paid audit. For most users this distinction is academic; for sensitive use cases, on-device inference is structurally stricter than a server-side flow, no matter how well-written the privacy policy is.
Is QOVES more accurate than RealSmile?
QOVES uses a human consultant layered on a clinical-aesthetic methodology, which adds qualitative judgment that purely geometric tools cannot fully replicate (skin texture nuance, hairline pattern reading, overall harmony interpretation). RealSmile uses 68-point landmark detection and 10 named geometric metrics with peer-reviewed priors: PMC2781897 (Little, Jones & DeBruine 2011 on facial attractiveness and symmetry), PMC2826778 (Carre & McCormick 2008 on facial width-to-height ratio and trait perception), and PMID 16313657 (Willis & Todorov 2006 on first-impression formation in 100 milliseconds). The honest framing is that "accuracy" depends on the question. For pre-treatment surgical scoping, a clinician layer adds value RealSmile cannot. For deterministic, reproducible per-metric percentiles tied to published priors, RealSmile is the cleaner read. Different tools, different jobs.
Should I get a QOVES report or use RealSmile first?
A reasonable order of operations for users curious about face-analysis tools is to start with the free RealSmile 10-metric scan to see whether the metric-driven, evidence-cited format actually answers your question. If the per-metric breakdown plus glow-up plan closes the loop for you, you are done; the audit is free and there is no upgrade pressure. If, after reading your free report, you find that you want a clinician to weigh in on treatment options or you want a surgeon-led perspective for pre-procedure scoping, that is exactly the use case QOVES is built for and it is a fine next step. We are not trying to talk users out of QOVES; we are trying to make sure users do not pay premium consultation pricing for a question that a free, evidence-cited audit could have answered.
Sources: the public QOVES site and YouTube channel surfaces visible to readers, accessed 2026-05-04. Where QOVES facts could not be verified from public surfaces, this page uses hedged framing rather than a fabricated stat. RealSmile is explicitly not a clinical service; nothing on this page should be read as medical, surgical, or treatment advice.
Free · No consultation · No signup
10 geometric metrics, population percentiles, ranked glow-up plan. On-device inference on desktop, no upload, no clinician layer.
Get My Free Score →⚡ Premium Dating Photo Audit · Delivered in 1–2 minutes
Compare faster: $49 gets you all 10 photos scored on 17 metrics, lead picked, deletes flagged, 5-page PDF + 30-day plan. Done in 2 minutes.
✓ 1–2 min delivery · ✓ 17 metrics scored · ✓ Identity-locked glow-up preview · ✓ 7-day refund · ✓ Stripe secured
Hand-picked from 90+ tests, guides, and audits.
Instant AI score vs 14-hour voter wait
vs CompetitorsModern AI scoring vs the old algorithm
vs Competitors$2,800 saved vs Qoves report — and faster
vs Competitors17 metrics vs anaface's 5
DatingScore every shot for women-first audience
DatingA/B test any two photos head-to-head