Best Face Rating and Analysis Apps Compared

There are two genuinely different kinds of app in this category and they look identical from the outside. Both take a selfie. Both give you a number.

Rating apps pass your photo through a model trained to predict human attractiveness ratings and output whatever the model says. There is no formula, no landmark you can point to, and when it is wrong nobody can explain why.

Measurement apps locate landmarks and compute proportions with explicit formulas. Given the coordinates and the formula you could reproduce the number by hand.

Most of this market is the first kind. This comparison is organised around telling them apart, because it determines what your result is worth.

Full disclosure: ASCNDED is our app and it is ranked first here. The three tests it is ranked on are stated below before any app is named, and all three are things you can run yourself in ten minutes. Pricing is accurate as of July 2026 and changes in this category constantly.

---

The comparison

---

What actually separates them

Does it tell you how it measured?

This is the question that determines everything else, and almost the entire market fails it.

Every facial measurement has more than one accepted convention. Canthal tilt can be measured against true horizontal or against the line through your pupils, and if your head is tilted three degrees those give answers three degrees apart, which is enormous on a measurement whose whole population range is about eight degrees. Facial width-to-height ratio has two definitions in circulation that produce different numbers for the same face. Gonial angle measured on a photo is measuring soft tissue, not bone, and disagrees with a clinical cephalogram routinely by ten degrees or more.

An app that does not tell you which convention it used has given you a number you cannot compare to anything, including your own result from a different app.

Publishes in full: ASCNDED, which is the reason it is first here. Every formula, reference line, landmark definition, and classification threshold is on one public page, along with which landmarks are approximated and why that lowers confidence. Publishes partially: Qoves, which describes its landmark count and general approach. Prettyscale, in the sense that everyone knows it is scoring golden ratio proportions. Does not publish: everyone else.

Where does the paywall sit relative to your result?

Not a trivial point about pricing. It tells you what the product is.

ASCNDED gives you the measurements free and charges for the detailed report and recommendations, so nothing is blurred and dangled and you can judge the report while already holding your numbers.

Umax places the paywall after you have uploaded and watched the scan finish. You see the lock, not the score. This is the most-cited complaint in its reviews and it is also excellent product design, which is why it works.

LooksMax AI gates the result behind either a weekly subscription or inviting three friends. The referral wall is a growth loop presented as a free option, aimed at a young audience.

Qoves has no free tier and does not tease. You pay or you do not, with nothing blurred and dangled.

Prettyscale is fully free.

Does the number stay the same when your face does?

The single most common complaint across this whole category is same photo, different score.

That is diagnostic. A measurement of a stable trait should return the same value for the same input. If it does not, either the pipeline is nondeterministic or the output was never a measurement.

Reviewers consistently report Umax scores swinging with lighting and angle. That is the signature of a model responding to image conditions rather than to facial structure.

There is also a structural reason to expect instability across this category. Most of these apps monetise weekly subscriptions, which means the product is retention and the score is the mechanism. A number tuned to keep you engaged behaves differently from one tuned to be right, and a score that swings produces rescanning in a way that a stable score does not. The two apps at the top of this list are the two that do not depend on that mechanism: Qoves sells a single report, and ASCNDED gives the measurements away and publishes the formulas, which only works if the numbers hold still.

---

The apps

1. ASCNDED, $19.99 once

Thirteen measurements by explicit geometry. Two independent landmark models cross-check each other and their disagreement feeds a confidence score attached to every metric. Scale is derived from iris diameter, which is close to 11.7mm across the adult population, allowing millimetre measurements and detection of close-range photo distortion. Pose, resolution, and contour validity are gated before anything is measured. Full method published, including which landmarks are approximated.

Strong: the only app here publishing its conventions, so every number can be checked or compared meaningfully against another tool's. The only one attaching per-metric confidence with a stated reason when it is low, so directional lighting on a symmetry score shows up as a flag rather than as a silently different number. Measurements are free, and the full report is $19.99 once against roughly $200 a year for the weekly subscriptions in this category.

Weak, honestly: it is for men, at least for now. We specialised on purpose, so the geometry measures any face accurately but the reference ranges and recommendations are male, and women's ranges are not shipped yet. And you get ranges rather than one number: a confidence band and the adult population range on every metric, with no single score out of ten. That is deliberate, but it is more to read than a verdict and some people specifically want the verdict.

2. Qoves, ~$150/year

The most detailed report here. A reported 521 landmarks and over 160 measurements, against the 60 to 500 typical of consumer apps, with reports partially reviewed by a person rather than fully automated. Reports reference actual clinical aesthetic frameworks and separate surgical from non-surgical options clearly.

Strong: depth, human review, and no teasing paywall. Weak: the method is only partially disclosed, so 160 measurements arrive without the conventions behind them and the depth has to be taken on trust. The price is a real barrier, there is no free way to evaluate it first, and multiple reviewers find the recommendations generic relative to cost.

3. Umax, ~$3.99/week

The most downloaded app in the category, reportedly past 7 million downloads and around $500,000 a month in subscription revenue as of mid-2024, with roughly 90% of users men aged 16 to 45. Scores 0 to 100 across jawline, cheekbones, skin, and masculinity.

Strong: the best consumer experience in the category by some margin. Fast, clean, and there is community context around your result. Weak: method undisclosed, paywall lands after the scan, and scores reportedly swing with lighting and angle. Its privacy policy stating raw selfies are deleted within seven days is better than several competitors.

4. LooksMax AI, ~$9.99/week or invite three friends

Often cited around 11 million downloads. The main Android option. Maps canthal tilt, gonial angle, and what it calls facial harmony, and outputs a score plus fixes.

Strong: more granular than Umax, with feature-level breakdowns rather than mostly a headline number. Weak: the referral wall, the price at roughly two and a half times Umax, undisclosed method, and reported 30-day photo retention on the Pro tier.

5. Hiface, freemium

Face shape detection and style matching rather than proportional analysis.

Strong: narrow and actionable. Good if your problem is choosing haircuts that fight your features. Weak: not a measurement tool in the sense this comparison is about.

6. Prettyscale, free

Scores against golden ratio proportions, no login required.

Strong: free and instant. Weak: the golden ratio claim in facial aesthetics does not hold up. Faces contain enough landmarks that some pair approximates 1.618 in almost any face if chosen after the fact, and applied consistently the correlation with attractiveness ratings is weak. The templates derive from a narrow set of faces, so this measures distance from one group's average.

---

Test them yourself

Four tests, ten minutes, and they work on any app in this category. Including ours.

1. Same file twice. Results should be identical. If they are not, part of what you see between sessions is noise.

2. Tilt five degrees. Angular results should barely move, or you should be asked to retake. If canthal tilt shifts by about the amount you tilted, the app is measuring against image horizontal rather than your pupil line.

3. Change the lighting. Symmetry should be close between flat light and side light, or the app should flag it. If it changes noticeably, it is measuring shadow.

4. Look for a methodology page. Landmarks, reference lines, confidence derivation. Absence is the answer.

---

What none of them can do

Give you an accurate attractiveness score. Ours included, which is why we do not print one.

Research on rater agreement finds that shared consensus explains only around half the variation in attractiveness judgement. The rest is the private taste of whoever is looking, and it is not predictable from geometry. Even a perfect measurement addresses about half the question.

There is a real shared component, and it is not small. Meta-analytic work finds people agree on who is attractive substantially more than chance, within and across cultures. But resolving that shared component to a decimal point from one frontal photograph is not something anyone can currently do, and every app claiming to is presenting an undisclosed weighting as a finding.

There is also a timing problem worth knowing. People form a first impression of a face in roughly a tenth of a second, in motion, in person, never from a frozen frontal frame. Every app here is measuring the one version of your face that nobody actually meets.

---

The short recommendation

Best overall: ASCNDED. The only one that publishes its method, the only one attaching confidence to each measurement, and the measurements are free. Run a scan

Most detailed report: Qoves, if $150 a year is acceptable and you accept you cannot check the working. Best consumer experience: Umax, with the number treated as entertainment. Best on Android: LooksMax AI. Best for face shape and styling: Hiface. Best free: Prettyscale, as a novelty.

And if you take one thing from this: prefer an app that reports individual measurements with its method stated over one that gives you a score. The score looks like more information and is actually less.

---

Frequently asked questions

What is the most accurate face rating app? The question is slightly wrong. Rating accuracy cannot be established, because a rating is a weighted combination of measurements and no app publishes its weights. Measurement accuracy can be, and it can only be assessed where the conventions are published. ASCNDED is the only app in this comparison that publishes them in full, which makes it the only one whose accuracy you can actually evaluate rather than take on faith.

Are face rating apps accurate? For proportions under controlled photo conditions, reasonably. For attractiveness scores, no. The widespread experience of getting different scores from the same face is the clearest evidence, and it is why a measurement with a confidence score attached is worth more than a rating without one.

What is the best free face analysis app? ASCNDED gives you all thirteen measurements free, with only the detailed report paid. Prettyscale is fully free but scores against golden ratio templates that do not hold up well. Umax and LooksMax AI are free to upload but gate your result.

Which app measures face shape best? Any app measuring face shape should tell you the four measurements it used and the thresholds separating the categories. ASCNDED publishes both, and lowers confidence when your measurements sit near a category boundary. Hiface is focused on face shape but does not publish its thresholds. The main source of disagreement between face shape tools is hairline placement, which affects face length and can move you across a boundary.

Which app is best for facial symmetry? Whichever one accounts for directional lighting, because lighting is the dominant source of false asymmetry. Shadow edges displace landmarks and read as structural difference. ASCNDED reduces symmetry confidence and names the cause when illumination is uneven. An app that returns a symmetry score without checking illumination is partly measuring your lamp.

Do these apps sell your photos? Check each policy individually, and check it before uploading rather than after. Facial geometry is sensitive biometric data. Retention periods vary substantially across this category, from seven days to thirty and longer.

---

Related reading Best looksmaxxing apps 2026 · Why face rating apps give different scores · How we measure a face