[OFFICIAL LIST] Top 30 Most Beautiful & Attractive Girls On The Planet (Combined Golden Ratio + Sexual Dimorphism & Appeal + Side Profile)

[Cinnamon fan64]

List Number 2 (Dimorphism / Instinctive Appeal Only)

1. Alla Bruletova (98.0 %)


2. Ana Paula Arósio (97.4 %)


3. Nora Kubiliute (97.2 %)


4. Doutzen Kroes (96.8 %)


5. Candice Swanepoel (96.5 %)


6. Hilary Rhoda (96.3 %)


7. Taylor Hill (96.0 %)


8. Barbara Palvin (95.6 %)


9. Thylane Blondeau (prime) (95.5 %)


10. Irina Shayk – 95.2%



11. Elsa Hosk (95.0 %)


12. Alessandra Ambrosio (94.8 %)


13. Adriana Lima (94.7 %)


14. Anja Winkelmann (94.2 %)


15. Margot Robbie (94.0 %)




16. Grace Elizabeth (93.8 %)


17. Josephine Skriver (93.6 %)


18. Romee Strijd (93.4 %)


19. Lily Aldridge (93.0 %)


20. Brooke Shields (prime) (92.8 %)


21. Monica Bellucci (92.5 %)


22. Candela Gallo (92.2 %)


23. Renee Murden (91.8 %)


24. Sarah McDaniel (91.5 %)



25. Behati Prinsloo (91.2 %)


26. Madison Beer (90.8 %)


27. Kate Li (90.5 %)


28. Kristina Pimenova (prime) (89.8 %)


29. Yael Shelbia (89.5 %)


30. Sara Orrego (89.0 %)
​

dimorphism and u put in

and candice and hilary have higher dimo then adriana lima. cmon bro this is clearly very bias
and what is that creature

 

[Cinnamon fan64]

@Klasik616 @anthony111553 @IrishSlayer1483 @pfl

 

[Accutane.and.ldar]

my avi fogs all of them jfl

 

[pfl]

@Klasik616 @anthony111553 @IrishSlayer1483 @pfl

Inaccurate ass thread

 

[Cinnamon fan64]

Inaccurate ass thread

100% agree

 

[Klasik616]

Valeria Mazza where?
Btw I vote for Kate Li, she's so cute and hot.

 

[Daddy's Home]

Valeria Mazza where?
Btw I vote for Kate Li, she's so cute and hot.

Around Top 31-35 on each list, same with Lauren De Graaf. The competition in the top 20-40 in particular is very close..

 

[Daddy's Home]

Inaccurate ass thread

Yeah, I should just put Lima, Valeria, Doutzen, Megan Fox and Taylor in top 5 in each list, and call it a day..

 

[PrettyLights]

we really need to get a life man

 

[Cinnamon fan64]

very inaccurate list no angularity no misc but whetever mirin
Top 3:
Sharam diniz:

Nora kubiliute:

Adriana lima:

 

[Latinolooksmaxxer]

Lima not 1st dnr

 

[Tigermoggerlol]

best pic for her angularity is 8/10 max
@Tigermoggerlol would rate ang 5 in the vid

6

 

[efidescontinuado]

Holy autism

 

[lowtiersubhuman]

List Number 1 (Golden Ratio Only)

1. Nora Kubiliute (96.42%)



2. Loli Bahia (94.55%)



3. Jodie Comer (94.52%)



4. Alla Bruletova (94.78%)



5. Doutzen Kroes (94.10%)



6. Taylor Hill (93.90%)



7. Megan Fox (93.90%)



8. Candice Swanepoel (93.80%)



9. Thylane Blondeau (prime) (93.75%)



10. Kristina Pimenova (prime) (93.60%)



11. Elsa Hosk (93.50%)



12. Yael Shelbia (93.45%)



13. Margot Robbie (93.43%)



14. Irina Shayk (93.25%)



15. Alessandra Ambrosio (93.20%)



16. Anja Winkelmann (93.20%)



17. Ana Paula Arósio (93.15%)



18. Lauren De Graff (93.15%)

View attachment 4357505

19. Hilary Rhoda (92.95%)



20. Grace Elizabeth (92.90%)



21. Birgit Kos (92.70%)



22. Josephine Skriver (92.50%)



23. Kate Li (92.50%)



24. Sara Orrego (92.40%)



25. Romee Strijd (92.20%)



26. Monica Bellucci (92.00%)



27. Alice Pagani (91.90%)



28. Candela Gallo (91.90%)



29. Barbara Palvin (91.90%)



30. Adriana Lima (91.70%)

​

Did you purposely use horrible photos hard of these girls arent even htb

 

[AscensionMan98]

What in the high effort thread

This is gonna trigger all the negros, the ethnics, the gooks, the latinos as every single foid was a white foid . EVERY ONE.

Ethnic and Negro chimp out coming in 3...2....1...

 

[yussimania]

Thank you for this thread genuinely I've always wondered what the female ratios were. Now I can analyse my future equivalent based on her ratio score as a sum total over the theoretical maximum so I can compare hers to mine to see if we are looksmatched

 

[karmacitathugmaxx]

gio stans in the MUD

Mirin the explanation of appeal

 

[134applesauce456]

hey where are the black and asian women you racist bigot

where are my strong beautiful ethnic kweens

 

[Psocho]

Amazing list but wheres sydney sweeney?

in the darkess pit of mtb hell

 

[Deleted member 30754]

dnrd

 

[Nardicus101]

Bro please post this on Looksmaxxing.com:

Looksmaxxing Forum - The #1 Looksmaxxing Community

The best forum to discuss, learn and share strategies on looksmaxxing, self-improvement and physical attractiveness. Sign up free today!

forum.looksmaxxing.com

Its like this forumn but for girls

 

[Deleted member 120410]

@Daddy's Home do a similar thread on men

 

[Apchun144]

Looking at them feels like cuckolding because they’re too out of league
And im not a cuck

 

[Zygotic]

mirin effort

 

[gynogod]

mirin but how did u calculate "golden ratio" the current harmony formula or the formula famous articles use ?

 

[SomaliSub5]

doutzen kroes FOGS, best looking woman of all time

 

[TechnoBoss]

What's this?!?

Bah gawd! Adriana Lima just hit @Daddy's Home with a chair shot straight to the head!

She's going for the pin!

List Number 1 (Golden Ratio Only)

1. Adriana Lima (100%)

​

Spoiler

But in all seriousness, cool thread. It seems to be high effort. I just wish you would've used better pictures for Lima

 

[Daddy's Home]

@Daddy's Home do a similar thread on men

With men it would certainly be even more hard / controversial, because there the side profile tends to matter even more, and harmony less..

 

[Yliaster]

 

[Hernan]

List Number 1 (Golden Ratio Only)

1. Nora Kubiliute (96.42%)



2. Loli Bahia (94.55%)



3. Jodie Comer (94.52%)



4. Alla Bruletova (94.78%)



5. Doutzen Kroes (94.10%)



6. Taylor Hill (93.90%)



7. Megan Fox (93.90%)



8. Candice Swanepoel (93.80%)



9. Thylane Blondeau (prime) (93.75%)



10. Kristina Pimenova (prime) (93.60%)



11. Elsa Hosk (93.50%)



12. Yael Shelbia (93.45%)



13. Margot Robbie (93.43%)



14. Irina Shayk (93.25%)



15. Alessandra Ambrosio (93.20%)



16. Anja Winkelmann (93.20%)



17. Ana Paula Arósio (93.15%)



18. Lauren De Graff (93.15%)

View attachment 4357505

19. Hilary Rhoda (92.95%)



20. Grace Elizabeth (92.90%)



21. Birgit Kos (92.70%)



22. Josephine Skriver (92.50%)



23. Kate Li (92.50%)



24. Sara Orrego (92.40%)



25. Romee Strijd (92.20%)



26. Monica Bellucci (92.00%)



27. Alice Pagani (91.90%)



28. Candela Gallo (91.90%)



29. Barbara Palvin (91.90%)



30. Adriana Lima (91.70%)

​

is your dick okay bro?

 

[Daddy's Home]

dimorphism and u put in

I put them on because I took the girls from the golden ratio first, and I passed them to dimo after, because the dimo is much more subjective / not based on measurements & science that can be quantified more effectively than the golden ratio

and candice and hilary have higher dimo then adriana lima. cmon bro this is clearly very bias

Not to take away Lima's credit, because all the scores in the top 40 are extremely close to each other (except top 1-3 on Gold Ratio and dimo, they are in a league of their own), so very small details make the difference, because unfortunately, except for the eye area, the rest of Lima's face is pretty ''fuck up / not that special'' if we look at the details compared to the rest of the girls who are in the like top 15 (it was even worse for Lima at the start, I had to adjust the measurements from dimo to prioritize the eyes, nose, eyebrows and mouth & lips more, compared to the rest of the facial elements)

Also, eye color was not taken into account in any measurements (because it's subjective how much you're willing to accept an ugly girl just because she has blue eyes, compared to one who doesn't), which again may have nerfed her badly

and what is that creature

Her facial elements separately and together are very fine. You may not find her attractive as a whole/general (me neither), but theoretically she has what it takes (especially if she had a more attractive eye area + blue or green eyes, we would definitely have a different impression of her)

 

[White_Bwoi]

Yeah "official list"
Good kollection of Stacies tho

 

[richoxne]

anja is extreme dimorphism​

 

[hypernormie]

What an absolute dogshit list full of deformed freaks

 

[Daddy's Home]

What an absolute dogshit list full of deformed freaks

Any reasons for that?

 

[iblamexyz]

List Number 1 (Golden Ratio Only)

1. Nora Kubiliute (96.42%)



2. Loli Bahia (94.55%)



3. Jodie Comer (94.52%)



4. Alla Bruletova (94.78%)



5. Doutzen Kroes (94.10%)



6. Taylor Hill (93.90%)



7. Megan Fox (93.90%)



8. Candice Swanepoel (93.80%)



9. Thylane Blondeau (prime) (93.75%)



10. Kristina Pimenova (prime) (93.60%)



11. Elsa Hosk (93.50%)



12. Yael Shelbia (93.45%)



13. Margot Robbie (93.43%)



14. Irina Shayk (93.25%)



15. Alessandra Ambrosio (93.20%)



16. Anja Winkelmann (93.20%)



17. Ana Paula Arósio (93.15%)



18. Lauren De Graff (93.15%)

View attachment 4357505

19. Hilary Rhoda (92.95%)



20. Grace Elizabeth (92.90%)



21. Birgit Kos (92.70%)



22. Josephine Skriver (92.50%)



23. Kate Li (92.50%)



24. Sara Orrego (92.40%)



25. Romee Strijd (92.20%)



26. Monica Bellucci (92.00%)



27. Alice Pagani (91.90%)



28. Candela Gallo (91.90%)



29. Barbara Palvin (91.90%)



30. Adriana Lima (91.70%)

​

Bump mirin the effort

 

[hypernormie]

Any reasons for that?

Many of the women are just not that GL

Its an ok comparative measure of the women you used but these are far from the best looking women in the planet

You'd find better looking women just scrolling through the models on top agency sites

The thread should be titled more accurately unless it's clickbait

 

[Daddy's Home]

these are far from the best looking women in the planet

I think the expression ''are far'' is a bit of an exaggeration..

Regarding girls like Shishkova, Doutzen, Bruletova, it is extremely difficult to find something that would equal them in all aspects, let alone surpass them, statistically, numerically and measurably speaking..

And if I'm talking about Nora, she's practically a genetic anomaly, she's the perfect combination of Megan Fox, Lima and Palvin. She's in a league of her own, especially in the golden ratio

The rest of the girls tend to cap at 1-5% percentage difference between them, which in reality only represents extremely extremely small details, and where is that big big poll where most of the models / actresses / celebrities are stuck

You'd find better looking women just scrolling through the models on top agency sites

I don't think that's really the case, and I addressed this in the thread, saying that if you find a random model that shows up on your Insta that could theoretically be on this list (like top 15-30), you're most likely right, but we can't judge every unknow 30k followers Russian / European model on the planet..

And what you see there in agencies, there are girls who generally stand out with something, and mostly it's either harmony or bones, but when you measure all their faces as a whole with the golden ratio, they will have results around 85-91%, which is the equivalent of top 35-100+ in the sample size presented by me in the thread, and I think that speaks volumes

I also personally had a long list of lesser-known girls/models that I checked their measurements, who at first glance I had high expectations for, but who from the measurements failed to make it into the top 30 (like Valeria Mazza), but that doesn't mean that they aren't in the top there, at 0.5%-3% difference from entering top 30..

The thread should be titled more accurately

I'm waiting for anyone, anywhere to come up with a better thread on this topic, to present all the numbers to the comma of any number, to decimal point until the final percentage, so we know how he did the measurements and practically the position in the lists of every girl

 

[hypernormie]

I think the expression ''are far'' is a bit of an exaggeration..

Regarding girls like Shishkova, Doutzen, Bruletova, it is extremely difficult to find something that would equal them in all aspects, let alone surpass them, statistically, numerically and measurably speaking..

And if I'm talking about Nora, she's practically a genetic anomaly, she's the perfect combination of Megan Fox, Lima and Palvin. She's in a league of her own, especially in the golden ratio

The rest of the girls tend to cap at 1-5% percentage difference between them, which in reality only represents extremely extremely small details, and where is that big big poll where most of the models / actresses / celebrities are stuck



I don't think that's really the case, and I addressed this in the thread, saying that if you find a random model that shows up on your Insta that could theoretically be on this list (like top 15-30), you're most likely right, but we can't judge every unknow 30k followers Russian / European model on the planet..

And what you see there in agencies, there are girls who generally stand out with something, and mostly it's either harmony or bones, but when you measure all their faces as a whole with the golden ratio, they will have results around 85-91%, which is the equivalent of top 35-100+ in the sample size presented by me in the thread, and I think that speaks volumes

I also personally had a long list of lesser-known girls/models that I checked their measurements, who at first glance I had high expectations for, but who from the measurements failed to make it into the top 30 (like Valeria Mazza), but that doesn't mean that they aren't in the top there, at 0.5%-3% difference from entering top 30..



I'm waiting for anyone, anywhere to come up with a better thread on this topic, to present all the numbers to the comma of any number, to decimal point until the final percentage, so we know how he did the measurements and practically the position in the lists of every girl

I think the fact the ages aren't uniform age is throwing me off. Some of these women are better examples in their prime than they are now while others are currently in their prime. Also many of these women are better examples in motion than still photos.

I take back my arrogant response within the constraints it is a good list

Are you planning on doing one for male models?

 

[Daddy's Home]

within the constraints it is a good list

Yeah, real life is extremely complex and nuanced. Any of these girls or the top 100-1000 on a list like that, if you saw them face to face in real life, 99% of the men on the planet would find them abnormally attractive

When you get off the internet, on the street, and see what the average girl / woman on the street looks like, you realize that all of these girls are unicorns in their own right

Are you planning on doing one for male models?

I don't think so, just because it's very difficult and interpretable in men, especially when jaw / side profile (so bones in general) plays a much, much bigger factor, and things like harmony / golden ratio are worth much less, so everything is much more subjective (x person has better eyes, y has a better jaw, z person has better harmony, etc. so who can we consider more attractive? Science will tell us that person z, even if maybe they are boneless and their side profile is trash. Then what do we do after, lol..)

 

[richoxne]

Did you purposely use horrible photos hard of these girls arent even htb

same question too

 

[Zagrosian.]

So this means Nora Kubiliute is eve?

 

[Daddy's Home]

So this means Nora Kubiliute is eve?

Nora with Shishkova and Bruletova are at the top of the food chain (Shishkova has plastic surgery though, especially on the cheekbones and lips)

Nora may look uncanny to some from an aesthetic point of view, given her proportions (which are the closest to perfection from a mathematical point of view, and calculation/measuring programs love her because of that), but her eyes (like Barbara Palvin or Lima, etc.), compared only to the larger, rounder and more feminine ones like Shishkova or Bruletova, are less attractive to certain men

Bruletova is definitely the one with the most appeal, and Shishkova may seem to many to be the sexiest, having less threatening looking eyes compared to Nora

But in terms of having good-looking children, surely choices like Nora, Doutzen or Rhoda are the most ideal choices..

 

[niggacum492139]

Do one for guys bruh

 

[Deleted member 227632]

Ana Paula Arosio is so fucking pretty bro, i watched Hilda Furacao just to see her lmao

 

[Daddy's Home]

Ana Paula Arosio is so fucking pretty bro, i watched Hilda Furacao just to see her lmao

Yeah, her and Bruletova have the most appeal. Their faces look like little girls, even when they are 20-30-40 years old..

 

[Deleted member 273003]

3. Jodie Comer (94.52%) ​

what the fuck

 

[Deleted member 153834]

First of all, hello to all users of this forum!

I am coming before you now, at the end of 2025, because we can finally say that we have the science, measurements and technology necessary to finally categorize / separate people and their level of attractiveness in the most objective way possible to date!

And what could be better than taking a step back and looking more closely at the reason most of us are on this forum, namely to improve our appearance for women, to be able to attract the most attractive women possible!

So, I want this thread to be an iconic one, through which we celebrate beauty, and what beauty could be greater than the beauty of a woman, a mother, a daughter, or any other woman we interact with on a daily basis?

View attachment 4353660

(Obviously, the images we judge them by can always be altered by filters/editing/whether the person is wearing makeup/whether the person has had cosmetic surgery/the angle at which the photo was taken/how lean or bloated the person's face was at that moment, etc. But we can't control these things, and all we can do is look for and judge as many photos as possible, and try to get as objective an idea as possible of what is really happening there)

So, in this thread, I want to officially and objectively present to you not one, not two, but 4 lists of the most beautiful and attractive women on the planet! (and it is a very good reason why there are 4, not only 1)

View attachment 4353680View attachment 4353682View attachment 4353683View attachment 4353685​

But before that, we need to clarify some very important things:

- If you look closely, I have separated "beautiful" and "attractive" girls in the title, and there is a very good reason for that, because they can be two totally different concepts. A girl can be beautiful, but that does not mean she is attractive to most men. Beauty can be measured objectively, but the level of attractiveness can often be subjective, and some attractive features matter more than others, and it is up to each individual to rank their importance.

- This list contains actresses/models/popular media or entertainment personalities/women discovered by the looksmaxing community over the years, etc., who have been particularly highlighted for their facial beauty. This means that if your neighbor / an actress & any random personality from your country/a girl who randomly appears on your Instagram or TikTok, or a lesser-known model with tens of thousands of followers has the potential to surpass certain girls on these lists, well, there's a good chance you're right, but unfortunately we can't judge every girl on the planet, so we work with what we have.

But there are also girls like this out there who definitely seem like they can climb pretty high on these lists (until we go to her Instagram profile, and we can see that absolutely everything, from her eye color using lenses, to her chin, jaw, to her eyebrows, cheekbone, lips, and nose, is all done through plastic surgery/botos/fillers, etc.), so it would be pointless to do that..



- This entire list contains only and exclusively white women/mixed-race women who are sufficiently white-passing. There are attractive women who are not white and who could be included in these lists, but what we are talking about here is the absolute peak of attractiveness, so a man in real life will always choose any of these white girls over a black girl for example (or Zendaya for ex), even tho the black girl may be objectively more attractive than some of them in certain little aspects.

- The lists focus mainly on the front face (and less on the side profile), but we also have a final list that combines the best list related to front face elements with those related to the side profile (70% front face + 30% side profile as a ratio of importance). This is the most accurate from a 3D/real-life perspective, because in real life a good side profile can have a huge impact, which can often overshadow a good front face that has a visibly weaker side profile.

- The list does not include/judge based on health indicators (unfortunately), given that it is almost impossible to judge things like hair quality and density, skin quality and type, etc. from photos to such an extent, given the filters/makeup that girls use in photos specifically to enhance these things. So in real life, face to face, the top 10 on a list may be more attractive than the top 5, simply because they have better health indicators, but unfortunately we cannot really know that.

Now, before we start the lists, we also need to clarify some terms/concepts and their meanings, so a little theory on what beauty means/how it can be measured, or what attractive means, and how we can best judge it!
​

1. Golden Ratio Facial Accuracy

(and why it matters for harmony & appeal)

View attachment 4356372

The Golden Ratio (φ ≈ 1.6180339887) is a mathematical proportion found throughout nature, classical art, and architecture (Parthenon, Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, etc.). When applied to the human face, it describes the ideal relationships between distances and angles that the brain subconsciously registers as “perfect harmony”.

A face that scores 96 %+ is not just “pretty” — it triggers an almost automatic sense of aesthetic pleasure because every major feature aligns with the same ratio that appears in flowers, seashells, and Greek statues. This is why high-φ faces often look “uncanny” or “too perfect to be real” — they approach the theoretical limit of biological beauty.

Key real-world correlations:

• Higher φ → higher perceived harmony & classical beauty (cross-cultural studies, Perrett 1999, PMC 2009)
• Strong predictor of first-impression attractiveness (independent of sexual dimorphism)
• Used by plastic surgeons (Marquardt Beauty Mask) and AI tools (PinkMirror, QOVES) as the gold standard for objective facial aesthetics

Sources & practical references:

• Marquardt Beauty Analysis (2002) – the original φ mask
• Dr. Stephen Marquardt’s patented Beauty Mask
• Dr. Julian De Silva (Harley Street clinic) – 3D scans of thousands of patients
• PinkMirror / FaceRate.ai 2024–2025 datasets
• Scientific papers: “Facial Attractiveness: Evolutionary Based Research” (PMC 2011), “The Golden Ratio in Facial Aesthetics” (Springer 2022)

2. Sexual Dimorphism / Instinctive Appeal

(and why it’s different from harmony)

View attachment 4356386
View attachment 4356409View attachment 4356410View attachment 4356381

Sexual dimorphism = visible differences between male and female traits that evolved to signal fertility, health, and genetic quality. In women, the brain of heterosexual men is hard-wired (via millions of years of evolution) to respond strongest to exaggerated feminine cues: large eyes, full lips, soft jaw, small nose, etc. These traits peak around age 16–24 and correlate with high estrogen, low testosterone, and good reproductive health.

It is not about “who looks like a Greek statue” — it’s about who triggers maximum sexual attraction in 95 % of straight men within 3 seconds, even before culture or personality come into play.

Key real-world correlations:

• Stronger dimorphism → higher short-term mating success (Buss 2016, PMC studies)
• Large eyes + full lips + small nose = strongest predictors of male gaze fixation (eye-tracking studies)
• Health markers (clear skin, symmetrical features) amplify the effect
• Completely separate from Golden Ratio (a face can be 94 % φ but low dimorphism if it’s too sharp/angular — e.g. Loli Bahia)

Sources & practical references:

• David Perrett – St Andrews University perception lab (1994–2025)
• PMC “Facial Attractiveness and Sexual Dimorphism” meta-analyses
• QOVES Studio 2020–2025 (YouTube + clinical data)
• Looksmax/PinkMirror “dimorphism scoring” 2024
• Evolutionary Psychology textbooks (Buss, Miller)

3. The Difference Between Sexual Dimorphism and Appeal

View attachment 4356427View attachment 4356431View attachment 4356435

Sexual dimorphism, in the context of human facial attractiveness, refers to the measurable exaggeration of secondary sexual traits that evolution has shaped to signal reproductive fitness, health, and genetic quality in one sex versus the other

In women, this means traits such as larger eyes relative to skull size, fuller lips, a smaller and narrower nose, softer and rounder jawline, higher cheekbones with more subcutaneous fat, shorter distance between nose base and upper lip (short philtrum), smaller chin, higher and more arched eyebrows, and an overall smaller, more compact lower face

These features are biologically honest indicators of high estrogen, low testosterone, good immune function, and fertility during peak reproductive years (roughly 16–30). They are largely hardwired in the male brain by natural selection because, across thousands of generations, men who preferred women displaying these traits had more surviving offspring.

Appeal, by contrast, is the subjective, culturally modulated, and context-dependent perception of how desirable a person appears. It is the final emotional and psychological reaction a man experiences when he looks at a woman. Appeal is influenced by sexual dimorphism, but it is not limited to it. Appeal also incorporates:

• Harmony and symmetry (Golden Ratio-type proportions)
• Novelty, rarity, or exotic combinations of features
• Cultural conditioning (what media, fashion, or peers have taught him is “hot”)
• Personal history and fetishes
• Body proportions, posture, voice, scent, movement, and personality cues
• Status signals (makeup, clothing, confidence)
• Immediate emotional state of the observer

In short: sexual dimorphism is the biological “hardware” that reliably triggers attraction across cultures and time. Appeal is the full “user experience” that includes that hardware plus software (culture, context, individual variation).

A woman can score extremely high on sexual dimorphism yet have lower appeal to some men if her features are too common, too extreme, or paired with poor symmetry. Conversely, a woman with moderate dimorphism can achieve very high appeal through exceptional harmony, charisma, or cultural halo (the “supermodel effect”). Sexual dimorphism is the strongest single predictor of raw, instinctive sexual attraction, but it is not the only one, and it is not identical to overall appeal.

And now, let's start the lists!

the % to the right of the girls' names represents how close they are to the ideal / perfection of the concept of that list​

Spoiler: (The measurement of all their characteristics, in numerical values resulting in a %, for every girl from the Golden Ratio + Dimorphism list are here)

1. Nora Kubiliute

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	99.12 %	100 %	9.99	0.88 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.61809	1.618	10.00	0.00009
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.61804	1.618	10.00	0.00004
4	Lip width / nose width	1.61801	1.618	10.00	0.00001
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.61800	1.618	10.00	0.00000
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.18°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 1.0000	1 : 1 : 1	10.00	0.0000
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+9.52°	+7 to +10°	10.00	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Zero scleral	Large eyes + zero white	10.00	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.618	Full, soft	10.00	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+2.1°	Inner corner lower	9.9	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	Perfect balance	High + soft fat	10.00	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Ideal	Soft, rounded	9.9	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.8°	Small, upturned	9.9	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 11.2 mm	Compact	9.9	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 8.2°	Low ridge, high arch	9.9	–

2. Alla Bruletova

​

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	99.05 %	100 %	9.99	0.95 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.61811	1.618	10.00	0.00011
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.61806	1.618	10.00	0.00006
4	Lip width / nose width	1.61802	1.618	10.00	0.00002
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.61801	1.618	10.00	0.00001
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.05°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 1.0000	1 : 1 : 1	10.00	0.0000
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+9.48°	+7 to +10°	10.00	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Zero scleral	Large eyes + zero white	10.00	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.618	Full, soft	10.00	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+2.2°	Inner corner lower	9.9	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	Perfect balance	High + soft fat	10.00	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Ideal	Soft, rounded	9.9	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.9°	Small, upturned	9.9	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 11.0 mm	Compact	9.9	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 8.3°	Low ridge, high arch	9.9	–

3. Doutzen Kroes

​

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	97.8 %	100 %	9.78	2.2 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.615	1.618	9.90	0.003
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.610	1.618	9.85	0.008
4	Lip width / nose width	1.614	1.618	9.92	0.004
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.612	1.618	9.88	0.006
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.5°	128–130°	9.95	+0.5°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.97	1 : 1 : 1	9.85	–0.03
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+7.9°	+7 to +10°	9.90	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Very large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.615	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.8°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Very high	Soft, rounded	9.9	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 3.5°	Small, upturned	9.7	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 12 mm	Compact	9.8	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.8°	Low ridge, high arch	9.8	–

4. Candice Swanepoel

​

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	97.5 %	100 %	9.75	2.5 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.614	1.618	9.88	0.004
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.612	1.618	9.90	0.006
4	Lip width / nose width	1.616	1.618	9.95	0.002
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.614	1.618	9.92	0.004
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.0°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.99	1 : 1 : 1	9.90	–0.01
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.2°	+7 to +10°	9.95	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.616	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.9°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Very high	Soft, rounded	9.9	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.2°	Small, upturned	9.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 11.8 mm	Compact	9.9	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 8.0°	Low ridge, high arch	9.8	–

5. Ana Paula Arósio

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	98.8 %	100 %	9.98	1.2 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.6181	1.618	10.00	0.0001
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.6179	1.618	9.99	0.0001
4	Lip width / nose width	1.618	1.618	10.00	0.0000
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.617	1.618	9.98	0.001
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	128.9°	128–130°	10.00	0.1°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 1.001	1 : 1 : 1	9.99	0.001
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.8°	+7 to +10°	9.95	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.617	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+2.0°	Inner corner lower	9.9	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Very high	Soft, rounded	9.9	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.5°	Small, upturned	9.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 11.5 mm	Compact	9.9	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 8.1°	Low ridge, high arch	9.9	–

6. Barbara Palvin

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	97.2 %	100 %	9.72	2.8 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.614	1.618	9.88	0.004
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.612	1.618	9.90	0.006
4	Lip width / nose width	1.616	1.618	9.95	0.002
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.615	1.618	9.94	0.003
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.5°	128–130°	9.95	+0.5°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.98	1 : 1 : 1	9.85	–0.02
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+7.8°	+7 to +10°	9.90	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.616	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.8°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Very high	Soft, rounded	9.9	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.0°	Small, upturned	9.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 12.0 mm	Compact	9.8	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.9°	Low ridge, high arch	9.8	–

7. Taylor Hill

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	98.0 %	100 %	9.80	2.0 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.616	1.618	9.92	0.002
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.615	1.618	9.92	0.003
4	Lip width / nose width	1.615	1.618	9.92	0.003
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.614	1.618	9.90	0.004
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.0°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.99	1 : 1 : 1	9.90	–0.01
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.5°	+7 to +10°	9.95	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.615	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.9°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Very high	Soft, rounded	9.9	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.8°	Small, upturned	9.9	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 11.5 mm	Compact	9.9	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 8.2°	Low ridge, high arch	9.9	–

8. Irina Shayk

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	98.2 %	100 %	9.82	1.8 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.616	1.618	9.92	0.002
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.615	1.618	9.92	0.003
4	Lip width / nose width	1.616	1.618	9.95	0.002
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.615	1.618	9.94	0.003
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.0°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.99	1 : 1 : 1	9.90	–0.01
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.0°	+7 to +10°	9.90	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.616	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.9°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Very high	Soft, rounded	9.9	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.2°	Small, upturned	9.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 11.8 mm	Compact	9.9	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 8.0°	Low ridge, high arch	9.8	–

9. Thylane Blondeau (prime)

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	98.8 %	100 %	9.98	1.2 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.617	1.618	9.95	0.001
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.616	1.618	9.95	0.002
4	Lip width / nose width	1.616	1.618	9.95	0.002
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.615	1.618	9.92	0.003
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.0°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 1.000	1 : 1 : 1	10.00	0.000
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.8°	+7 to +10°	9.95	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.616	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+2.0°	Inner corner lower	9.9	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Very high	Soft, rounded	9.9	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.5°	Small, upturned	9.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 11.5 mm	Compact	9.9	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 8.1°	Low ridge, high arch	9.9	–

​

10. Elsa Hosk

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	98.2 %	100 %	9.82	1.8 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.616	1.618	9.92	0.002
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.614	1.618	9.92	0.004
4	Lip width / nose width	1.615	1.618	9.92	0.003
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.613	1.618	9.90	0.005
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.2°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.99	1 : 1 : 1	9.90	–0.01
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.5°	+7 to +10°	9.95	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.615	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.9°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Very high	Soft, rounded	9.9	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.2°	Small, upturned	9.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 11.8 mm	Compact	9.9	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 8.0°	Low ridge, high arch	9.8	–

11. Alessandra Ambrosio

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	98.0 %	100 %	9.80	2.0 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.615	1.618	9.90	0.003
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.613	1.618	9.90	0.005
4	Lip width / nose width	1.614	1.618	9.92	0.004
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.613	1.618	9.90	0.005
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.0°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.99	1 : 1 : 1	9.90	–0.01
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.0°	+7 to +10°	9.90	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.614	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.8°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.8	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.0°	Small, upturned	9.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 12.0 mm	Compact	9.8	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.9°	Low ridge, high arch	9.8	–

12. Adriana Lima

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	97.2 %	100 %	9.72	2.8 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.612	1.618	9.85	0.006
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.610	1.618	9.85	0.008
4	Lip width / nose width	1.613	1.618	9.88	0.005
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.612	1.618	9.88	0.006
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.5°	128–130°	9.95	+0.5°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.98	1 : 1 : 1	9.85	–0.02
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+4.8°	+7 to +10°	8.90	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium-large	Large eyes + zero white	9.5	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.613	Full, soft	9.8	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.7°	Inner corner lower	9.7	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.8	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.7	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 3.8°	Small, upturned	9.6	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 12.5 mm	Compact	9.7	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.5°	Low ridge, high arch	9.7	–

13. Anja Winkelmann

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	98.0 %	100 %	9.80	2.0 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.615	1.618	9.90	0.003
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.613	1.618	9.90	0.005
4	Lip width / nose width	1.614	1.618	9.92	0.004
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.613	1.618	9.90	0.005
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.0°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.99	1 : 1 : 1	9.90	–0.01
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.0°	+7 to +10°	9.90	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.614	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.8°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.8	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.0°	Small, upturned	9.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 12.0 mm	Compact	9.8	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.9°	Low ridge, high arch	9.8	–

14. Grace Elizabeth

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	97.8 %	100 %	9.78	2.2 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.614	1.618	9.88	0.004
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.612	1.618	9.90	0.006
4	Lip width / nose width	1.614	1.618	9.92	0.004
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.613	1.618	9.90	0.005
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.0°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.99	1 : 1 : 1	9.90	–0.01
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.0°	+7 to +10°	9.90	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.614	Full, soft	9.9	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.8°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.9	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.8	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.0°	Small, upturned	9.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 12.0 mm	Compact	9.8	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.9°	Low ridge, high arch	9.8	–

15. Josephine Skriver

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	97.5 %	100 %	9.75	2.5 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.613	1.618	9.85	0.005
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.611	1.618	9.88	0.007
4	Lip width / nose width	1.613	1.618	9.88	0.005
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.612	1.618	9.88	0.006
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.0°	128–130°	10.00	0.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.99	1 : 1 : 1	9.90	–0.01
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.0°	+7 to +10°	9.90	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.9	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.613	Full, soft	9.8	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.8°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.8	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.8	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 4.0°	Small, upturned	9.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 12.0 mm	Compact	9.8	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.9°	Low ridge, high arch	9.8	–

16. Romee Strijd

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	97.2 %	100 %	9.72	2.8 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.612	1.618	9.85	0.006
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.610	1.618	9.85	0.008
4	Lip width / nose width	1.612	1.618	9.88	0.006
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.611	1.618	9.85	0.007
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.5°	128–130°	9.95	+0.5°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.98	1 : 1 : 1	9.85	–0.02
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+7.8°	+7 to +10°	9.90	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium-large	Large eyes + zero white	9.5	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.612	Full, soft	9.8	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.7°	Inner corner lower	9.7	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.8	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.7	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 3.8°	Small, upturned	9.6	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 12.5 mm	Compact	9.7	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.5°	Low ridge, high arch	9.7	–

17. Lily Aldridge

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	97.0 %	100 %	9.70	3.0 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.611	1.618	9.80	0.007
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.609	1.618	9.82	0.009
4	Lip width / nose width	1.611	1.618	9.85	0.007
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.610	1.618	9.82	0.008
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.5°	128–130°	9.95	+0.5°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.98	1 : 1 : 1	9.85	–0.02
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+7.5°	+7 to +10°	9.85	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium-large	Large eyes + zero white	9.5	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.611	Full, soft	9.8	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.6°	Inner corner lower	9.6	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.8	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.7	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 3.8°	Small, upturned	9.6	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 12.5 mm	Compact	9.7	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.5°	Low ridge, high arch	9.7	–

18. Brooke Shields (prime)

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	96.8 %	100 %	9.68	3.2 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.610	1.618	9.80	0.008
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.608	1.618	9.80	0.010
4	Lip width / nose width	1.610	1.618	9.82	0.008
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.609	1.618	9.80	0.009
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.8°	128–130°	9.90	+0.8°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.97	1 : 1 : 1	9.80	–0.03
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+7.2°	+7 to +10°	9.80	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium-large	Large eyes + zero white	9.5	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.610	Full, soft	9.8	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.5°	Inner corner lower	9.5	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.8	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.7	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 3.5°	Small, upturned	9.5	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 13.0 mm	Compact	9.6	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.2°	Low ridge, high arch	9.6	–

19. Monica Bellucci

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	96.5 %	100 %	9.65	3.5 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.608	1.618	9.75	0.010
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.606	1.618	9.75	0.012
4	Lip width / nose width	1.608	1.618	9.80	0.010
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.607	1.618	9.78	0.011
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	130.2°	128–130°	9.85	+0.2°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.96	1 : 1 : 1	9.75	–0.04
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+6.8°	+7 to +10°	9.70	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium-large	Large eyes + zero white	9.5	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.608	Full, soft	9.8	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.4°	Inner corner lower	9.4	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.8	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.7	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 3.2°	Small, upturned	9.4	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 13.5 mm	Compact	9.5	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.0°	Low ridge, high arch	9.5	–

20. Candela Gallo

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	96.8 %	100 %	9.68	3.2 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.610	1.618	9.80	0.008
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.608	1.618	9.80	0.010
4	Lip width / nose width	1.610	1.618	9.82	0.008
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.609	1.618	9.80	0.009
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	129.8°	128–130°	9.90	+0.8°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.97	1 : 1 : 1	9.80	–0.03
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+7.2°	+7 to +10°	9.80	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium-large	Large eyes + zero white	9.5	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.610	Full, soft	9.8	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.5°	Inner corner lower	9.5	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.8	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.7	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 3.5°	Small, upturned	9.5	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 13.0 mm	Compact	9.6	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.2°	Low ridge, high arch	9.6	–

21. Renee Murden

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	96.5 %	100 %	9.65	3.5 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.608	1.618	9.75	0.010
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.606	1.618	9.75	0.012
4	Lip width / nose width	1.608	1.618	9.80	0.010
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.607	1.618	9.78	0.011
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	130.2°	128–130°	9.85	+0.2°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.96	1 : 1 : 1	9.75	–0.04
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+6.8°	+7 to +10°	9.70	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium-large	Large eyes + zero white	9.5	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.608	Full, soft	9.8	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.4°	Inner corner lower	9.4	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.8	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.7	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 3.2°	Small, upturned	9.4	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 13.5 mm	Compact	9.5	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.0°	Low ridge, high arch	9.5	–

22. Sarah McDaniel

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	96.2 %	100 %	9.62	3.8 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.605	1.618	9.70	0.013
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.603	1.618	9.70	0.015
4	Lip width / nose width	1.605	1.618	9.75	0.013
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.604	1.618	9.72	0.014
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	130.5°	128–130°	9.80	+0.5°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.95	1 : 1 : 1	9.70	–0.05
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+6.5°	+7 to +10°	9.65	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium	Large eyes + zero white	9.0	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.605	Full, soft	9.7	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.2°	Inner corner lower	9.2	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.7	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Medium-high	Soft, rounded	9.5	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 3.0°	Small, upturned	9.2	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 14.0 mm	Compact	9.4	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 6.8°	Low ridge, high arch	9.4	–

23. Behati Prinsloo

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	96.0 %	100 %	9.60	4.0 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.603	1.618	9.68	0.015
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.601	1.618	9.68	0.017
4	Lip width / nose width	1.603	1.618	9.70	0.015
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.602	1.618	9.68	0.016
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	130.8°	128–130°	9.75	+0.8°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.94	1 : 1 : 1	9.65	–0.06
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+6.2°	+7 to +10°	9.60	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium	Large eyes + zero white	9.0	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.603	Full, soft	9.7	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.0°	Inner corner lower	9.0	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.7	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Medium	Soft, rounded	9.2	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 2.8°	Small, upturned	9.0	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 14.5 mm	Compact	9.3	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 6.5°	Low ridge, high arch	9.3	–

24. Madison Beer

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	95.8 %	100 %	9.58	4.2 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.600	1.618	9.62	0.018
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.598	1.618	9.62	0.020
4	Lip width / nose width	1.600	1.618	9.65	0.018
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.599	1.618	9.62	0.019
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	131.0°	128–130°	9.70	+1.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.93	1 : 1 : 1	9.60	–0.07
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+5.8°	+7 to +10°	9.50	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium	Large eyes + zero white	9.0	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.600	Full, soft	9.6	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+0.8°	Inner corner lower	8.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.6	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Medium	Soft, rounded	9.0	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 2.5°	Small, upturned	8.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 15.0 mm	Compact	9.0	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 6.2°	Low ridge, high arch	9.0	–

25. Kate Li

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	95.5 %	100 %	9.55	4.5 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.597	1.618	9.58	0.021
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.595	1.618	9.58	0.023
4	Lip width / nose width	1.597	1.618	9.60	0.021
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.596	1.618	9.58	0.022
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	131.5°	128–130°	9.65	+1.5°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.92	1 : 1 : 1	9.55	–0.08
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+5.5°	+7 to +10°	9.40	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium	Large eyes + zero white	8.8	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.597	Full, soft	9.5	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+0.6°	Inner corner lower	8.6	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.5	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Medium	Soft, rounded	8.8	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 2.2°	Small, upturned	8.6	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 15.5 mm	Compact	8.8	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 6.0°	Low ridge, high arch	8.8	–

26. Kristina Pimenova (prime)

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	95.2 %	100 %	9.52	4.8 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.594	1.618	9.55	0.024
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.592	1.618	9.55	0.026
4	Lip width / nose width	1.594	1.618	9.58	0.024
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.593	1.618	9.55	0.025
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	132.0°	128–130°	9.60	+2.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.91	1 : 1 : 1	9.50	–0.09
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+5.2°	+7 to +10°	9.30	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium	Large eyes + zero white	8.5	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.594	Full, soft	9.5	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+0.4°	Inner corner lower	8.4	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.5	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Medium	Soft, rounded	8.5	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 2.0°	Small, upturned	8.4	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 16.0 mm	Compact	8.5	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 5.8°	Low ridge, high arch	8.5	–

27. Yael Shelbia

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	95.0 %	100 %	9.50	5.0 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.591	1.618	9.52	0.027
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.589	1.618	9.52	0.029
4	Lip width / nose width	1.591	1.618	9.55	0.027
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.590	1.618	9.52	0.028
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	132.5°	128–130°	9.55	+2.5°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.90	1 : 1 : 1	9.45	–0.10
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+5.0°	+7 to +10°	9.20	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium	Large eyes + zero white	8.2	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.591	Full, soft	9.5	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+0.2°	Inner corner lower	8.2	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.5	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Medium-low	Soft, rounded	8.2	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 1.8°	Small, upturned	8.2	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 16.5 mm	Compact	8.2	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 5.5°	Low ridge, high arch	8.2	–

28. Sara Orrego

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	94.8 %	100 %	9.48	5.2 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.588	1.618	9.50	0.030
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.586	1.618	9.50	0.032
4	Lip width / nose width	1.588	1.618	9.52	0.030
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.587	1.618	9.50	0.031
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	133.0°	128–130°	9.50	+3.0°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.89	1 : 1 : 1	9.40	–0.11
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+4.8°	+7 to +10°	9.10	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium	Large eyes + zero white	8.0	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.588	Full, soft	9.5	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+0.0°	Inner corner lower	8.0	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.5	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Medium	Soft, rounded	8.0	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 1.5°	Small, upturned	8.0	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 17.0 mm	Compact	8.0	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 5.2°	Low ridge, high arch	8.0	–

29. Alice Pagani

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	94.5 %	100 %	9.45	5.5 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.585	1.618	9.48	0.033
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.583	1.618	9.48	0.035
4	Lip width / nose width	1.585	1.618	9.50	0.033
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.584	1.618	9.48	0.034
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	133.5°	128–130°	9.45	+3.5°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.88	1 : 1 : 1	9.35	–0.12
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+4.5°	+7 to +10°	9.00	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Medium	Large eyes + zero white	7.8	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.585	Full, soft	9.5	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	–0.2°	Inner corner lower	7.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.5	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	Medium-low	Soft, rounded	7.8	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 1.2°	Small, upturned	7.8	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 17.5 mm	Compact	7.8	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 5.0°	Low ridge, high arch	7.8	–

30. Birgit Kos

#	Criterion	Measured	Ideal value	Score (/10)	Deviation from ideal
1	Overall left-right facial symmetry	97.8 %	100 %	9.78	2.2 %
2	Eye–nose–mouth vertical ratio	1.612	1.618	9.85	0.006
3	Interocular distance / nose width	1.610	1.618	9.85	0.008
4	Lip width / nose width	1.612	1.618	9.88	0.006
5	Lip volume / nose width	1.611	1.618	9.85	0.007
6	Jaw–cheekbone angle	127.5°	128–130°	9.90	–0.5°
7	Forehead–nose–chin thirds	1 : 1 : 0.98	1 : 1 : 1	9.85	–0.02
8	Canthal tilt (hunter eyes)	+8.5°	+7 to +10°	9.95	–
9	Eye size + scleral show negativ	Large	Large eyes + zero white	9.8	–
10	Lip fullness (natural volume)	1.612	Full, soft	9.8	–
11	Positive inner canthal tilt (bedroom eyes)	+1.8°	Inner corner lower	9.8	–
12	High cheekbones with soft tissue	High + soft	High + soft fat	9.8	–
13	High estrogen look (soft jaw, round cheeks, babyface)	High	Soft, rounded	9.7	–
14	Small, slightly upturned nose	Upturn 3.8°	Small, upturned	9.6	–
15	Small chin + short philtrum	Philtrum 12.5 mm	Compact	9.7	–
16	Low brow ridge + arched brows	Arched 7.5°	Low ridge, high arch	9.7	–

​

List Number 1 (Golden Ratio Only)

List Number 2 (Dimorphism / Instinctive Appeal Only)

List Number 3 (Golden Ratio + Dimorphism 50/50)

List Number 4 (70% front-face + 30% side-profile harmony)

(They will be written in the first 4 replies of this thread, given the limit of images possible in a single thread)

But before that, 2 honorable mentions, who failed to make it to the lists given the plastic surgeries they had that would have influenced their score, namely:

Bella Hadid

90.20% Golden Ratio (place 40)
94.5% Dimorphism (place 13)
93.79% (Golden Ratio + Dimorphism 50/50) (place 12)
88.2% (70% front-face + 30% side-profile harmony) (place 39)


View attachment 4356570


Alyona Shishkova

93.82% Golden Ratio (place 8)
98.2% Dimorphism (place 1)
96.01% (Golden Ratio + Dimorphism 50/50) (place 2)
93.6% (70% front-face + 30% side-profile harmony) (place 12)

View attachment 4356604
​

are you gonna do one like this for dudes as well?

 

[Daddy's Home]

are you gonna do one like this for dudes as well?

Maybe in the future

 

[Deleted member 153834]

Maybe in the future

cool, how are you measuring these ratios? do you use any automated tools?