What does a 7/10 face actually look like? A reference table of every score band, the structural markers behind each tier, and how to measure your own.
Free score, no signup. Your photo stays in your browser.
17 metrics · NIH-cited landmarks · Free · No signup
Free score · $14.99 unlocks the full 17-metric report
The 1 to 10 scale on this page is the academic-style face-rating distribution familiar from facial-attractiveness research papers, where rater panels score photographs on a 1-to-10 (or sometimes 1-to-7) Likert scale and inter-rater agreement is measured statistically. The most cited synthesis is Langlois, Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hallam, and Smoot (2000), a meta-analysis of 919 effect sizes confirming that attractiveness ratings are reliable across raters within and across cultures — establishing that attractiveness is not "all subjective" in the way the colloquial defence assumes.
The site's 1 to 10 band is computed mechanically: the underlying 0 to 100 composite is calculated from 17 landmark-based structural metrics and divided by 10 to produce a Likert-style face rating compatible with how the academic literature reports it. The structural inputs are anchored against published anthropometry data, including Farkas's normative measurements (Farkas 1994), and the inter-metric weighting draws on Hönekopp's quantitative work on the relative contributions of symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism to perceived attractiveness (Hönekopp 2006; Hönekopp et al. 2007).
The bands below describe each tier in terms of the structural patterns that typically produce that rating in a rater-panel study: which metrics tend to be near the population mean, which tend to deviate in attractive-coded directions, and which tend to be flagged as drag metrics. This is the academic / clinical framing of the 1 to 10 scale. If you want the looksmax-community version of the same percentile distribution (sub5, LTN, MTN, HTN, Chadlite, Chad, Gigachad), the PSL chart page covers that translation explicitly.
Structural markers: Significant facial asymmetry (visible at 2 meters), severe acne or scarring, structural anomaly that disrupts the 17-metric baseline, or any combination of three or more flagged metrics below the 5th percentile.
Highest-leverage move: Soft-tissue and grooming levers will move this band into the 3 to 4 band quickly. Structural concerns warrant a board-certified consultation before any DIY work.
Structural markers: Two or three flagged metrics below the 25th percentile. Most commonly: skin texture, expression default, posture, jawline definition. The structural baseline is fine; the soft-tissue and expression layers are under-presented.
Highest-leverage move: This is the band with the largest available gains. Twelve weeks of consistent skincare plus posture and expression practice typically moves users into the 5 to 6 band. No structural intervention required.
Structural markers: No metrics strongly flagged in either direction. Baseline skin, baseline expression, baseline structure. The face reads as neither distinctive nor disharmonious.
Highest-leverage move: Moving from 5 to 6 is typically a body composition lever (lower visceral fat reveals jawline) or a current haircut and grooming refresh. Moving from 5 to 7 takes 6 to 12 months of consistent work on multiple levers.
Structural markers: One or two metrics in the 75th percentile or higher (often eye region, skin clarity, or jawline). The rest at baseline. The face reads positively in good lighting and average angles.
Highest-leverage move: Moving from 6 to 7 typically requires identifying and removing one specific drag metric (often skin texture, posture default, or under-styled hair). The paid report identifies it. From there it is targeted work, not generalized advice.
Structural markers: Multiple metrics in the 75th to 90th percentile range. Often: positive canthal tilt, strong jawline ratio, balanced facial thirds, clear skin, Duchenne-default expression. The face reads positively across lighting conditions and angles.
Highest-leverage move: Moving from 7 to 8 typically requires structural assets that are largely set by the late twenties. Body composition, photography skill, and expression refinement carry the remaining gains. Most users plateau here without diminishing returns being a bad thing.
Structural markers: Multiple metrics in the 90th percentile or higher. Strong structural baseline (gonial angle, FWHR, midface volume, canthal tilt all favorable), excellent soft-tissue (clear skin, controlled expression), and habitual photo competence.
Highest-leverage move: Maintenance band. Sleep, skin, body composition, and recovery sustain this band. Drift downward is more likely from neglect than upward from effort. The improvement plan in this band is a maintenance protocol, not a gain plan.
Structural markers: Structural assets across the board, consistent across multiple photos and lighting conditions, plus expression and presentation that compound the structural baseline. Rare. Often appears in casting, modeling, or specific genetic clusters.
Highest-leverage move: No improvement plan in the looksmaxxing sense. Maintenance protocols (sleep, skin, body composition) and photography skill carry the entire upside in this band. Structural intervention is almost always a net negative at this level.
Free score is the headline. Full report is the plan.
The $14.99 Looksmax Report identifies your band, names the two metrics that are dragging you below it, and writes a 12-week improvement plan targeted at your specific weak metrics. One-time price, no subscription.
Free, instant, private. Both the 0 to 100 composite and the 1 to 10 band, with the structural markers behind your specific score.
17 metrics · NIH-cited landmarks · 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