mediterraneanbull
Bronze
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2025
- Posts
- 324
- Reputation
- 209
This thread is meant to serve as a guideline on facial analytics, that is both accurate and objective.
In it, we will cover:
- an example of a looks scale - with real life examples and ratings
- A formula on calculating one’s harmony score. (HARM)
- A formula on calculating one’s dimorphism score. (DIMO)
- A formula on calculating one’s angularity score. (ANGU)
- A formula on calculating one’s miscellaneous score. (MISC)
- And how to put these scores into an objective looks rating
Why? - The ratings on this forum are usually done on a whim, and extremely rarely performed with a consistent structure. This leads to inflated variance, personal or subjective bias, unreliable comparisons or just overall bad ratings.
For the people who actually care about precision, that is unacceptable. Therefore, this thread is meant as a staple, repeatable and benchmarked solution to provide yourself or others with accurate, non-biased ratings that also point out flaws and strong points so the users know what to work on.
1. Looks scale
Factored on HARM, DIMO, ANGU and MISC
9.5 - 9.1 RANGE (1 in 40 millions - 1.2 million)
These women are near perfect levels of facial looks, and individuals in this level place among the best (known) looking faces of all time.
Features:
- Only a handful in the world
- Only a few minor imperfections
- Very high facial harmony
- High dimorphism
- High health indicators
- Low BF% (near 20 - 23%)
- High set cheekbones
Examples:
- Valeria Mazza (9.34)
- Doutzen Kroes (9.31)
- Adriana Lima (9.25)
- Renée Simonsen (9.22)
- Anna Speckhart (9.07)
9 - 8.75 (1 in 1.2 million - 630k)
Strikingly attractive, subjectively can be placed into the 9.1-10 range.
Features:
- A very small group of people (models, actresses, etc.)
- Few flaws, perhaps unideal eye spacing, nose shape, etc.
- High facial harmony and dimorphism
- low BF% (near 20 - 23%)
- High set cheekbones
- High health indicators
Examples:
- Mini Anden (8.97)
- Taylor Hill (8.95)
- Yael Shelbia (8.81)
- Barbara Palvin (8.78)
- Julianna Herz (8.76)
8.5 - 8.25 (1 in 185k - 15k)
Exceptionally attractive
Features:
- Few in the world (Mostly models & actresses)
- Minimal flaws
- High facial harmony common, but not always present
- Low bodyfat
- Less angularity, but still lean features
- High health indicators
- High facial dimorphism
Examples:
- Renée Murden (8.52)
- Sara Sampaio (8.46)
- Bianca Balti (8.45)
- Maggie Rawlins (8.41)
- Blanca Soler (8.39)
8 - 7.75 (1 in 4100 - 1300)
Surpassingly attractive
Features:
- Easier to find, but can model or act at a high level
- Can have a handful of flaws, and larger ones
- Low bodyfat
- High health indicators & harmony
- Usually, but not always possess high cheekbones
- High facial dimorphism
Examples:
- Lauren De Graaf (8.16)
- Miranda Kerr (8.04)
- Alessandra Ambrosio (7.92)
- Amber Heard (7.85)
- Gisele Bundchen (7.76)
7.5 - 7 (1 in 440 - 1 in 70)
Considerably or highly attractive
Features:
- At least one striking feature
- Recognized for their looks, or will stand out in a crowd
- Can be successful models/actors
- Low body fat, but less facial angularity than the ones above.
- High health indicators
- High (7.5) or above average (7) facial harmony, usually flawed by eye spacing, face shapes, FWHR, etc.
- High dimorphism, but less than above
Examples:
- Elisha Cuthbert (7.60)
- Jessica Alba (7.39)
- Ana De Armas (7.20)
Nina Dobrev (7.00)
6.75 - 6.5 (1 in 50 - 16)
Noticeably attractive
Features:
- Can spark a modeling career or social media following
- Looks are not a life barier & usually an advantage
- Attractive actors found here
- Facial flaws more obvious
- Hotably higher than average facial dimorphism
- High health indicators
- Bodyfat does not have to be super low, but still in shape
Examples:
- Bella Hadid (6.78)
- Gigi Hadid (6.70)
- Cobie Smulders (6.64)
- Gwen Paltrow (6.49)
6.25 - 6 (1 in 5.4)
Decently attractive
Features:
- Generally considered attractive
- Subjectivity comes more into play
- Best looking in a small classroom or workplace
- Facial dimorphism and definition above average
- Flaws are apparent
- Fit, but not always low bodyfat
Examples:
- Emma Stone (6.22)
- Kaia Gerber (6.17)
- Sydney Sweeney (6.03)
- Ashley Greene (6.03)
5.5 - 5 (1 in 2.7 - 2)
Moderately attractive
Features:
- Completely ordinary
- Not seen as unattractive/attractive
- Do not stand out in a crowd, but can act or do music
- Face not an advantage or disadvantage in life
- Lacking dimorphism
- Facial flaws obvious (bulbous nose, long philtrum, droopy eyes, etc.)
- Facial harmony will typically average around 55% or lower.
- Health indicators are medium
- Weak chin and jaw are common
Examples:
- Sarah Roemer (5.49)
- Tate Mcrae (5.24)
- Madeline Zima (5.00)
4.5 (1 in 2.16)
Below average looking, can still be considered ordinary
Features:
- Considered ugly by most, but very ordinary in reality
- Bodyfat varies, but can be too high or too low
- Facial harmony lacking
Example:
- Joey King (4.55)
4 (1 in 3.69)
Ordinarily ugly
Features:
- Considered ugly by most
- Still very ordinary in public
- Few good features
Example:
- Tori Spelling (3.99)
3.5 (1 in 9.7)
Unordinarily ugly
Features:
- There is not much to note past this point. These are the bottom tiers of facial aesthetics.
- Past his point there is little purpose in discerning exactly how unattractive one’s facial features are.
Example:
- Heather Matarazzo (3.40)
3 (1 in 39.2)
Extremely ugly
2 and below (1 in 2500 - 40 million)
Otherworldly ugly
2. MISC formula - calculating a miscellaneous score
MISC makes up 26% of a facial score, therefore next to harmony it’s the second most important formula.
Below you’ll see tables with numbers that will later be calculated into a 0=100 score.
Now how do you calculate this into a 0-100 score?
An ideal, 100% MISC score will hold 1031 points, with these ideal categories:
1. Skin - 160
2. Eyes - 231
3. Colouring - 135
4. Overall lower third - 170
5. Lips - 110
6. Nose - 110
7. Other misc - 115
The worst possible MISC score will hold -460, with these worst categories:
1. Skin - -95
2. Eyes - -186
3. Colouring - 2
4. Overall lower third - -28
5. Lips - -32
6. Nose - -31
7. Other misc - -90
To calculate a total MISC score, use this formula
Code:
((YOURMISC - WORSTMISC) / (MAXMISC - (WORSTMISC)) X 100
For example, a misc score of 571 would be:
Code:
((571 - (-460)) / ((1031 - (-460))) X 100 = 69.16
Therefore, the person will overall have a 69.16% MISC score, or 6.916/10
3. ANGU formula - calculating an angularity score
The angularity score has the same weight as the dimorphism score - 20%
To calculate it, follow this formula:
To calculate your angularity score, do the exact same calculation as with MISC.
Max score - 149.83
Worst score - 19.03
(example) your score - 71
Code:
((71 - 19.03) / (149.83 - 19.03)) x 100 = 39.73
Therefore, this (example) persons angularity score is 39.73%, or 3.973/10
4. DIMO formula - how to a calculate dimorphism score
DIMO, with a weight of 20%, describes how feminine a person is, with 0 being the closest to male-ish features, and 100 usually being a superfeminine.
DIMO is very easily eyeballed with a DIMO chart, but there’s still a rough formula that might be useful to some people
The chart:
The formula:
You already know how the score calculation goes.
Max - 120
Worst- -67.44
(example) Your score - 81
Code:
((81 - (-67.44)) / (120 - (-67.44))) x 100 = 79.20
Therefore, this persons DIMO score will be 79.20% or 7.92/10
5. HARM formula - how to calculate a harmony score
Harmony is easily the most important facial aesthetic score in here. It holds a whopping 32% overall importance.
The term gets thrown around everywhere, but in reality it’s just your features on a mathematical scale.
Formula:
MAX score - 389.74
WORST score - -409.92
(example) your score - 110
Code:
((110−(−409.92)) / (389.74−(−409.92))) x 100 = 64.99
Therefore, this (example) persons harmony score is 64.99, or 6.499/10
6. Overall facial score
We will take all the example scores we already made:
harmony - 64.99, or 6.499/10
DIMO - 79.20%, or 7.92/10
ANGU - 39.73%, or 3.973/10
MISC - 69.16%, or 6.916/10
and make an overall facial analysis score with this simple calculation made byimsubhumanlmfao:
32% harmony
26% misc
22% ang
20% dimo
deductions: Highest score - lowest score = TS
TS x 0.1 = D
overall score - D = True Score
So, our facial score will be:
Code:
Harmony: 6.499 x 0.32 = 2.07968
MISC: 6.916 x 0.26 = 1.79716
Angularity: 3.973 x 0.22 = 0.87406
DIMO: 7.92 x 0.20 = 1.58400
2.07968+1.79716+0.87406+1.584=6.33490
with the deduction calculation:
Highest score: DIMO = 7.92
Lowest score: ANGU = 3.973
TS=7.92−3.973=3.947
D=TS×0.1=3.947×0.1=0.3947
True Score=6.33490−0.3947=5.9402
With all of this, our example person is a 5.9402/10
(bonus) how to measure ratios easily
Best way to measure ratios is to use the line tool in a photoshop app (or for example paint.net), then dividing those pixels to get a structured ratio.
INSPIRATION AND TEMPLATE FROM @BigBallsLarry
@Randomized Shame @Daddy's Home @TechnoBoss @NumbThePain @Hernan
In it, we will cover:
- an example of a looks scale - with real life examples and ratings
- A formula on calculating one’s harmony score. (HARM)
- A formula on calculating one’s dimorphism score. (DIMO)
- A formula on calculating one’s angularity score. (ANGU)
- A formula on calculating one’s miscellaneous score. (MISC)
- And how to put these scores into an objective looks rating
Why? - The ratings on this forum are usually done on a whim, and extremely rarely performed with a consistent structure. This leads to inflated variance, personal or subjective bias, unreliable comparisons or just overall bad ratings.
For the people who actually care about precision, that is unacceptable. Therefore, this thread is meant as a staple, repeatable and benchmarked solution to provide yourself or others with accurate, non-biased ratings that also point out flaws and strong points so the users know what to work on.
1. Looks scale
Factored on HARM, DIMO, ANGU and MISC
9.5 - 9.1 RANGE (1 in 40 millions - 1.2 million)
These women are near perfect levels of facial looks, and individuals in this level place among the best (known) looking faces of all time.
Features:
- Only a handful in the world
- Only a few minor imperfections
- Very high facial harmony
- High dimorphism
- High health indicators
- Low BF% (near 20 - 23%)
- High set cheekbones
Examples:
- Valeria Mazza (9.34)
- Doutzen Kroes (9.31)
- Adriana Lima (9.25)
- Renée Simonsen (9.22)
- Anna Speckhart (9.07)
9 - 8.75 (1 in 1.2 million - 630k)
Strikingly attractive, subjectively can be placed into the 9.1-10 range.
Features:
- A very small group of people (models, actresses, etc.)
- Few flaws, perhaps unideal eye spacing, nose shape, etc.
- High facial harmony and dimorphism
- low BF% (near 20 - 23%)
- High set cheekbones
- High health indicators
Examples:
- Mini Anden (8.97)
- Taylor Hill (8.95)
- Yael Shelbia (8.81)
- Barbara Palvin (8.78)
- Julianna Herz (8.76)
8.5 - 8.25 (1 in 185k - 15k)
Exceptionally attractive
Features:
- Few in the world (Mostly models & actresses)
- Minimal flaws
- High facial harmony common, but not always present
- Low bodyfat
- Less angularity, but still lean features
- High health indicators
- High facial dimorphism
Examples:
- Renée Murden (8.52)
- Sara Sampaio (8.46)
- Bianca Balti (8.45)
- Maggie Rawlins (8.41)
- Blanca Soler (8.39)
8 - 7.75 (1 in 4100 - 1300)
Surpassingly attractive
Features:
- Easier to find, but can model or act at a high level
- Can have a handful of flaws, and larger ones
- Low bodyfat
- High health indicators & harmony
- Usually, but not always possess high cheekbones
- High facial dimorphism
Examples:
- Lauren De Graaf (8.16)
- Miranda Kerr (8.04)
- Alessandra Ambrosio (7.92)
- Amber Heard (7.85)
- Gisele Bundchen (7.76)
7.5 - 7 (1 in 440 - 1 in 70)
Considerably or highly attractive
Features:
- At least one striking feature
- Recognized for their looks, or will stand out in a crowd
- Can be successful models/actors
- Low body fat, but less facial angularity than the ones above.
- High health indicators
- High (7.5) or above average (7) facial harmony, usually flawed by eye spacing, face shapes, FWHR, etc.
- High dimorphism, but less than above
Examples:
- Elisha Cuthbert (7.60)
- Jessica Alba (7.39)
- Ana De Armas (7.20)
Nina Dobrev (7.00)
6.75 - 6.5 (1 in 50 - 16)
Noticeably attractive
Features:
- Can spark a modeling career or social media following
- Looks are not a life barier & usually an advantage
- Attractive actors found here
- Facial flaws more obvious
- Hotably higher than average facial dimorphism
- High health indicators
- Bodyfat does not have to be super low, but still in shape
Examples:
- Bella Hadid (6.78)
- Gigi Hadid (6.70)
- Cobie Smulders (6.64)
- Gwen Paltrow (6.49)
6.25 - 6 (1 in 5.4)
Decently attractive
Features:
- Generally considered attractive
- Subjectivity comes more into play
- Best looking in a small classroom or workplace
- Facial dimorphism and definition above average
- Flaws are apparent
- Fit, but not always low bodyfat
Examples:
- Emma Stone (6.22)
- Kaia Gerber (6.17)
- Sydney Sweeney (6.03)
- Ashley Greene (6.03)
5.5 - 5 (1 in 2.7 - 2)
Moderately attractive
Features:
- Completely ordinary
- Not seen as unattractive/attractive
- Do not stand out in a crowd, but can act or do music
- Face not an advantage or disadvantage in life
- Lacking dimorphism
- Facial flaws obvious (bulbous nose, long philtrum, droopy eyes, etc.)
- Facial harmony will typically average around 55% or lower.
- Health indicators are medium
- Weak chin and jaw are common
Examples:
- Sarah Roemer (5.49)
- Tate Mcrae (5.24)
- Madeline Zima (5.00)
4.5 (1 in 2.16)
Below average looking, can still be considered ordinary
Features:
- Considered ugly by most, but very ordinary in reality
- Bodyfat varies, but can be too high or too low
- Facial harmony lacking
Example:
- Joey King (4.55)
4 (1 in 3.69)
Ordinarily ugly
Features:
- Considered ugly by most
- Still very ordinary in public
- Few good features
Example:
- Tori Spelling (3.99)
3.5 (1 in 9.7)
Unordinarily ugly
Features:
- There is not much to note past this point. These are the bottom tiers of facial aesthetics.
- Past his point there is little purpose in discerning exactly how unattractive one’s facial features are.
Example:
- Heather Matarazzo (3.40)
3 (1 in 39.2)
Extremely ugly
2 and below (1 in 2500 - 40 million)
Otherworldly ugly
2. MISC formula - calculating a miscellaneous score
MISC makes up 26% of a facial score, therefore next to harmony it’s the second most important formula.
Below you’ll see tables with numbers that will later be calculated into a 0=100 score.
| Skin | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Tier 6 | Tier 7 | Tier 8 | Ideal |
| Skin clearness (acne + blemishes) | 50 | 25 | 10 | 5 | 0 | -10 | -20 | -30 | No acne or blemishes |
| Hyperpigmentation | 30 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | -5 | -10 | -30 | None |
| Moles | 10 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -5 | -10 | None |
| Skin texture | 15 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -2 | -5 | Smooth |
| Acne scarring | 15 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -2 | -5 | None |
| Facial folds + wrinkles | 40 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | -5 | -15 | None |
| Eye area | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Tier 6 | Tier 7 | Tier 8 | Ideal |
| Upper eyelid | 35 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 0 | -5 | -15 | Slight UEE, straight/curved, no drooping |
| Lower eyelid shape | 20 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -3 | -8 | Slightly almondy curved, no drooping |
| Sclera show | 15 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -5 | -10 | -15 | None |
| Eyelashes | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | -2 | -4 | Arched, dense, dark | |
| Eyebrows | 30 | 18 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 0 | -5 | -15 | Arched, dense, dark |
| Periorbital darkening | 25 | 10 | 5 | 0 | -5 | -10 | -30 | -50 | None |
| Under eye circles | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | -3 | -5 | -15 | None |
| LEE | 15 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | -5 | -8 | None | |
| Eye colour | 10 | 7 | 5 | Light colour | |||||
| Scleral triangles | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -5 | -10 | -15 | Even triangles |
| Medial canthus | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | -1 | Downturned, long, not thin | |||
| PFL | 20 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 0 | -5 | -10 | -15 | 27mm+ (iris method) |
| Sclera colour | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | White | ||||
| Unibrow | 5 | 3 | 1 | -2 | -5 | -10 | -15 | -30 | None |
| Colouring | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Tier 6 | Tier 7 | Tier 8 | Ideal |
| Skin colour | 30 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 0 | Tanned | |||
| Lip colour | 15 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 0 | -3 | Reddish pink | ||
| Eyelash visibility | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | Contrasting + visible | |||
| Eye colour | 20 | 10 | 5 | Light eye colour | |||||
| Hair colour | 25 | 10 | 5 | 0 | Dark colour | ||||
| Eyebrow colour | 20 | 10 | 5 | 0 | Dark colour | ||||
| Sclera whiteness | 10 | 5 | 0 | Fully white |
| Overall lower third | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Tier 6 | Tier 7 | Tier 8 | Ideal |
| Gonions | 40 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 0 | -5 | Slightly flared | |
| Chin shape | 30 | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | -5 | Narrow but in proportion | |
| Chin width | 25 | 13 | 7 | 3 | 0 | -5 | Wide in proportion | ||
| Ramus length | 35 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 0 | -5 | Tall but not masculinized | |
| Mandible length | 30 | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | -5 | Long & straight | |
| Mandible shape | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -3 | Straight (minimal antegonial notch) |
| Lips | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Tier 6 | Tier 7 | Tier 8 | Ideal |
| Lip width | 25 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -5 | Wide | |
| Philtrum length | 20 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -5 | Short (not excessive) | |
| Philtrum ridges | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | -3 | Defined | |||
| Lip fullness | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -5 | Full | |
| Lip health | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -5 | No cracking | |
| Commissures | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | -3 | Slight upturn | |||
| Cupid’s bow | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | -3 | Prominent | |||
| Lip seal | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -3 | Aligned with vermillion border |
| Nose | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Tier 6 | Tier 7 | Tier 8 | Ideal |
| Alar width | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -5 | Narrow | |
| Nose bulbosity | 20 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -5 | Low bulbousness | |
| Nasal tip | 25 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -5 | Slightly upturned, defined | |
| Nostril show | 20 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -5 | Minimal | |
| Nostril flare | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | -3 | None | |||
| Dorsum | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | -3 | Straight or slightly concave | |||
| Radix projection | 15 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -5 | Lower projection (soft nasofrontal angle) |
| Other misc | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Tier 6 | Tier 7 | Tier 8 | Ideal |
| Ears | 15 | 8 | 4 | 0 | -5 | -10 | -20 | -40 | Pinned back |
| Symmetry | 100 | 70 | 50 | 30 | 10 | 0 | -10 | -50 | Minimal asymmetry |
An ideal, 100% MISC score will hold 1031 points, with these ideal categories:
1. Skin - 160
2. Eyes - 231
3. Colouring - 135
4. Overall lower third - 170
5. Lips - 110
6. Nose - 110
7. Other misc - 115
The worst possible MISC score will hold -460, with these worst categories:
1. Skin - -95
2. Eyes - -186
3. Colouring - 2
4. Overall lower third - -28
5. Lips - -32
6. Nose - -31
7. Other misc - -90
To calculate a total MISC score, use this formula
Code:
((YOURMISC - WORSTMISC) / (MAXMISC - (WORSTMISC)) X 100
For example, a misc score of 571 would be:
Code:
((571 - (-460)) / ((1031 - (-460))) X 100 = 69.16
Therefore, the person will overall have a 69.16% MISC score, or 6.916/10
3. ANGU formula - calculating an angularity score
The angularity score has the same weight as the dimorphism score - 20%
To calculate it, follow this formula:
| Feature | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Tier 6 | Tier 7 | Ideal |
| Mandible Visibility (Front) | 24.75 | 21.04 | 17.33 | 13.61 | 9.90 | 6.19 | 3.09 | Gentle mandible contour, softly visible flare, minimal lower-face |
| Facial 3D-ness | 18.75 | 15.94 | 13.13 | 10.33 | 7.52 | 4.71 | 2.36 | Balanced midface projection, soft anterior depth, smooth orbital support |
| Gonion Sharpness | 18.75 | 15.94] | 13.13 | 10.33 | 7.52 | 4.71 | 2.36 | Softer gonial angle (125°–135°), smooth contour, harsh edge |
| Facial Depth | 17.25 | 14.66 | 12.08 | 9.49 | 6.91 | 4.33 | 2.17 | Strong maxilla + mandible forward projection |
| Mandible & Ramus Visibility | 16.74 | 14.23 | 11.71 | 9.19 | 6.68 | 4.17 | 2.09 | Tall ramus in proportion, subtle rear-jaw contour, softly visible from front |
| Ogee Curve | 15.75 | 13.39 | 11.03 | 8.67 | 6.30 | 3.94 | 1.97 | Pronounced ogee curve, high cheekbones with smooth transition to midface |
| Cheekbone Visibility | 15.11 | 12.85 | 10.58 | 8.32 | 6.05 | 3.79 | 1.89 | High cheekbones, moderate lateral projection, soft hollowing (not harsh) |
| Chin Angularity | 12.30 | 10.46 | 8.61 | 6.77 | 4.92 | 3.08 | 1.54 | Rounded or slightly pointed chin pad, delicate pogonion definition, feminine convexity |
| Lower-Midface Fat | 10.43 | 8.86 | 7.30 | 5.73 | 4.17 | 3.13 | 1.56 | Slight buccal fullness for youthfulness, but still defined jaw contour |
To calculate your angularity score, do the exact same calculation as with MISC.
Max score - 149.83
Worst score - 19.03
(example) your score - 71
Code:
((71 - 19.03) / (149.83 - 19.03)) x 100 = 39.73
Therefore, this (example) persons angularity score is 39.73%, or 3.973/10
4. DIMO formula - how to a calculate dimorphism score
DIMO, with a weight of 20%, describes how feminine a person is, with 0 being the closest to male-ish features, and 100 usually being a superfeminine.
DIMO is very easily eyeballed with a DIMO chart, but there’s still a rough formula that might be useful to some people
The chart:
The formula:
| Feature | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Ideal (highest masculinity) |
| Eye depth | 22.32 | 16.74 | 11.16 | 0.00 | -33.48 | Moderate eye depth, softer orbital margins, smooth brow–eye transition, less shadowing |
| Brow ridge shape | 13.44 | 10.08 | 6.72 | 3.36 | -3.36 | Flat or gently curved brow ridge, smooth supraorbital contour, minimal bossing |
| Chin shape | 12.72 | 9.54 | 6.36 | 3.36 | -12.72 | Narrower, tapered chin, rounded pogonion, softer horizontal plane |
| Buccal fat size | 11.70 | 8.78 | 5.85 | 2.93 | -2.93 | Moderate buccal fullness, youthful cheeks, smooth ogee curve |
| Ramus length (front) | 11.53 | 8.65 | 5.77 | 2.88 | -2.88 | Tall ramus in proportion, softer vertical jaw height, balanced lower face |
| Gonion outward growth | 11.04 | 8.28 | 5.52 | 2.76 | -2.76 | Reduced gonial flare, softer jaw angle, more oval lower face silhouette |
| Narrowing upper third | 9.00 | 6.75 | 4.50 | 2.25 | -2.25 | Balanced upper third, smooth transition from temples to midface |
| Facial hair development | 7.80 | 5.85 | 3.90 | 1.95 | -1.95 | None |
| Smooth skin texture | 7.20 | 5.40 | 3.60 | 1.80 | -1.80 | Smooth, fine skin texture, minimal pore visibility |
| Cheekbone size | 6.91 | 5.18 | 3.46 | 1.73 | -1.73 | High cheekbones but softly projected, gentle ogee curve, less harsh shadowing |
| Lip fullness | 6.34 | 4.75 | 3.17 | 1.58 | -1.58 | Fuller lips, defined Cupid’s bow, soft vermillion border |
You already know how the score calculation goes.
Max - 120
Worst- -67.44
(example) Your score - 81
Code:
((81 - (-67.44)) / (120 - (-67.44))) x 100 = 79.20
Therefore, this persons DIMO score will be 79.20% or 7.92/10
5. HARM formula - how to calculate a harmony score
Harmony is easily the most important facial aesthetic score in here. It holds a whopping 32% overall importance.
The term gets thrown around everywhere, but in reality it’s just your features on a mathematical scale.
Formula:
| Feature | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 | Tier 6 | Tier 7 | Ideal |
| Jaw Width | 20.59 | 18.53 | 10.29 | 6.18 | -18.53 | -46.32 | - | Moderate jaw width, softly balanced with cheekbones; lower face strong but not square |
| Eye to Eyebrow Distance / Eyebrow Setness | 19.83 | 17.84 | 9.91 | 5.95 | -5.95 | -11.90 | - | Brows close to eyes, gentle arch, no drooping |
| Brow Ridge Inclination Angle | 19.83 | 17.84 | 9.91 | 5.96 | -5.96 | -11.90 | - | Smooth, feminine brow ridge with soft definition |
| Facial Thirds | 19.83 | 17.84 | 9.91 | 5.95 | -5.95 | -11.90 | - | 1:1:1 proportion between upper/mid/lower thirds |
| Nasofrontal Angle | 19.06 | 17.16 | 9.53 | 5.72 | -5.72 | -34.31 | - | 130–135°, soft transition from forehead to nose |
| Neck Width | 19.06 | 17.16 | 9.53 | 5.72 | -17.16 | -34.31 | - | Slim neck proportional to jaw width and face size |
| Lower Third Proportion | 18.30 | 16.47 | 9.15 | 5.49 | -5.49 | -10.98 | - | Lower third ~31–33% of face height, not elongated |
| FWHR | 18.30 | 16.47 | 9.15 | 5.49 | -16.47 | -49.41 | - | neither too long nor too wide, between 1.8–2.0 |
| Eye Aspect Ratio | 18.30 | 16.47 | 9.15 | 5.49 | -5.49 | -10.98 | - | Almond shaped eyes with slight lateral taper |
| Gonial Angle | 16.78 | 15.10 | 8.39 | 5.03 | -10.07 | -20.13 | - | ~120° |
| Ramus Length | 14.41 | 14.41 | 8.01 | 5.80 | -10.59 | -20.13 | - | Long ramus with strong vertical jaw height |
| Thirds of Jaw | 17.54 | 15.78 | 8.77 | 6.48 | -3.89 | -23.35 | - | Symmetric vertical jaw thirds and a balanced mandible height |
| Chin to Philtrum Ratio | 12.96 | 11.67 | 6.48 | 3.89 | -1.95 | -3.89 | - | Short philtrum with proportional chin height (preferebly ~1:2) |
| Lateral Canthal Tilt | 12.35 | 11.12 | 6.18 | 3.71 | -3.71 | -7.4 | - | Positive 4+ degrees lateral tilt |
| Mouth to Nose Ratio | 12.35 | 11.12 | 6.18 | 3.71 | -3.71 | -7.4 | - | Balanced width between nose base and mouth corners, preferably 1:1.6 |
| Eye Separation | 12.20 | 10.98 | 6.59 | 3.66 | -10.98 | -65.88 | - | IPD at ~62-65 mm |
| Midface Ratio | 11.90 | 10.71 | 5.95 | 3.57 | -3.57 | -7.14 | - | Short/mid midface height centered around 47-50mm |
| Jaw Frontal Angle | 9.15 | 8.24 | 4.58 | 2.75 | -4.58 | -9.15 | - | Strong frontal jawline angle without tapering inward |
| Cheekbone Setness | 20 | 10 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 | -2.5 | - | High, laterally projecting zygos with visible ogee curve |
| Face Length | 20 | 10 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 | -2.5 | - | Proportionate long face without vertical excess |
| Bizygomatic Width | 20 | 10 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 | -2.5 | - | Strong cheekbone width (~135–145 mm), balanced with jaw |
| Nose to Bizygomatic Ratio | 7 | 3.75 | 1.88 | 0.94 | 0 | -0.94 | - | Nose width ~65- 70% of cheekbone width |
| Eyebrow Tilt | 10 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 | -2.5 | -5 | - | Slightly upward lateral brow rise |
| Medial Canthal Angle | 7.5 | 3.75 | 1.88 | 0 | -1.88 | -3.75 | - | Symmetric medial canthi forming subtle inward angle |
| Bitemporal Width | 7.5 | 3.75 | 1.88 | 0 | -1.88 | -3.75 | - | Strong but not overly wide temples |
| Lower Third Proportion | 5 | 2.5 | 1.25 | 0 | -1.25 | -2.5 | - | Evenly divided between all thirds. |
MAX score - 389.74
WORST score - -409.92
(example) your score - 110
Code:
((110−(−409.92)) / (389.74−(−409.92))) x 100 = 64.99
Therefore, this (example) persons harmony score is 64.99, or 6.499/10
6. Overall facial score
We will take all the example scores we already made:
harmony - 64.99, or 6.499/10
DIMO - 79.20%, or 7.92/10
ANGU - 39.73%, or 3.973/10
MISC - 69.16%, or 6.916/10
and make an overall facial analysis score with this simple calculation made byimsubhumanlmfao:
32% harmony
26% misc
22% ang
20% dimo
deductions: Highest score - lowest score = TS
TS x 0.1 = D
overall score - D = True Score
So, our facial score will be:
Code:
Harmony: 6.499 x 0.32 = 2.07968
MISC: 6.916 x 0.26 = 1.79716
Angularity: 3.973 x 0.22 = 0.87406
DIMO: 7.92 x 0.20 = 1.58400
2.07968+1.79716+0.87406+1.584=6.33490
with the deduction calculation:
Highest score: DIMO = 7.92
Lowest score: ANGU = 3.973
TS=7.92−3.973=3.947
D=TS×0.1=3.947×0.1=0.3947
True Score=6.33490−0.3947=5.9402
With all of this, our example person is a 5.9402/10
(bonus) how to measure ratios easily
Best way to measure ratios is to use the line tool in a photoshop app (or for example paint.net), then dividing those pixels to get a structured ratio.
INSPIRATION AND TEMPLATE FROM @BigBallsLarry
@Randomized Shame @Daddy's Home @TechnoBoss @NumbThePain @Hernan
