Peer-reviewed research × frontier AI

Enhance Your Appearance, Naturally

The best-looking version of you is already in there. We find it, measure it, and show you how to bring it out.

Start your analysis How it works
Backed by ResearchBuilt on published research
Precisely Measured45+ Measurements with 478 Landmarks
PersonalizedMade specifically for your face

Before / after

Every try-on in your Blueprint is rendered on your own photo and limited to styling and care — cut, beard, colour, skin, framing. Your bone structure stays yours. Drag to compare the kind of change a plan targets: a styling projection, not a surgical promise.

A man with shaggy grown-out hair, a patchy two-day shadow, unkempt brows and tired skin The same man after our styling projection: a modern quiff, shaped brows, smoother skin and a full beard Before After
Men — cut · eyebrows · skin · beard Cut: Modern quiff Eyebrows: Shaped Skin: Smoothed Beard: Full beard
A woman with frizzy, shapeless dark brown hair, sparse brows and bare skin with a few breakouts The same woman after our styling projection: beige blonde colour, an old-money bob, defined brows and the Beige Crystal makeup Before After
Women — colour · cut · makeup · eyebrows Colour: Beige blonde Eyebrows: Defined Makeup: Beige Crystal Cut: Old-money bob

Browse a full sample report

A smarter route

Stop guessing. Start measuring.

The old way

  1. Step 1

    Guess what’s “wrong”

  2. Step 2

    Scroll conflicting advice

  3. Step 3

    Nothing changes

Our way

  1. Step 1

    Upload 7 photos

  2. Step 2

    Every feature, measured

  3. Step 3

    A plan + try-ons on your face

Why it matters

Your face shapes outcomes. That’s measured, too.

Eight published findings, each linked to its paper. Appearance isn’t destiny, but your face is worth understanding.

How it works

Upload to insight in under 30 minutes.

  1. 01

    Upload 7 photos

    A guided flow captures front, profile, and top views with per-photo quality checks, so every shot is usable before you finish.

  2. 02

    The pipeline measures

    478 landmarks are mapped server-side, 45+ measurements computed, and frontier AI writes the plain-language read for each of the 18 dimensions.

  3. 03

    Blueprint + galleries land

    Your Blueprint PDF and style try-ons arrive together — usually in under 30 minutes, and we email you when they are ready.

  4. 04

    Track what changes

    Re-analyse each year and compare side by side. The measurements are deterministic, so the movement you see is real.

Your analysis

See your face the way everyone else does.

Your mirror shows you flipped; your photos show the face others see. Every measurement has a literature reference range, never a fake percentile, plus classifications and plain-language prose for all 18 dimensions.

Actual portal interface, shown with illustrative values.

What you get

One upload. Your plan to look your best.

  • Every feature, measured

    478 landmarks and 45+ measurements across 18 analysis sections: all twelve features, from eyes and eyebrows to skin, hair and ears, each explained in plain language. Skin includes your undertone.

  • Six whole-face assessments

    First impression, dimorphism, golden ratio, proportions, symmetry and face shape.

  • Where you are, and where you can get

    Each feature gets a current score, judged against people your own age, beside the achievable score your plan can realistically reach.

  • Your Blueprint, step by step

    What to do for each feature, highest-impact first, including a morning and evening skin sequence. Online, plus a PDF to keep.

  • Up to 10 hairstyles on your face

    Men and women: up to ten cuts that fit your face shape and the hair you have, rendered on your own photo, not a stock model.

  • Men: 10 facial-hair styles

    Stubble to full beard, matched to your jaw and to your recommended cut, on your own photo.

  • Women: 10 Beauty Looks

    Each pairs a recommended cut with hair colour and makeup matched to your undertone, on your own photo.

  • Your ideal self

    One image of you with your plan applied: cut, styling and skin. Styling and care only, by design: it never edits your bone structure.

  • Dimorphism morphs

    Your face shifted slightly more masculine and slightly more feminine. An exploration, not a promise.

  • Progression tracking

    Re-analyse next year and see both analyses side by side. The measurements are deterministic, so the change you see is real.

Pricing

Less than a single consult. Renewed yearly.

  • Aesthetic Blueprint

    $59 per year

    • Full 18-section facial analysis
    • Your personalised Blueprint, with a PDF to keep
    • Up to 10 hairstyles picked for your face, on your own photo
    • Men: beard and facial-hair styles on your photo
    • Women: a Beauty Look — cut, colour and makeup on your photo
    • Dimorphism morphs and undertone read
    • 1 analysis per year
    • Cancel anytime
    Get started

  • Advanced Blueprint

    $149 per year

    • Everything in Aesthetic
    • Botox® and fillers
    • RF microneedling, skin tightening and resurfacing
    • Plastic surgery options
    • See yourself after each option: AI simulations of a typical result
    • Your ideal self: you at your best
    • What to ask a board-certified provider
    • 1 analysis per year
    • Cancel anytime

The science

32 studies. All real, all linked.

We don’t claim "thousands of studies" — we show you the ones we actually build on, with links, including the papers that tell us what not to measure. Every measurement in your report traces to this literature or is labelled as a subjective read.

What makes a face attractive 5
  1. [1]

    Rhodes, G. (2006). “The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty.” Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.

    Averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism are attractiveness cues across cultures.

  2. [2]

    Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). “Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1571), 1638–1659.

    The comprehensive review of symmetry, dimorphism, averageness, and skin cues.

  3. [3]

    Foo, Y. Z., Simmons, L. W., & Rhodes, G. (2017). “Predictors of facial attractiveness and health in humans.” Scientific Reports, 7, 39731.

    Measured together, attractiveness tracked masculinity, symmetry and averageness in men, femininity in women, and lower facial adiposity in both.

  4. [4]

    Bashour, M. (2006). “History and current concepts in the analysis of facial attractiveness.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 118(3), 741–756.

    How professional facial analysis actually assesses faces.

  5. [5]

    Langlois, J. H., et al. (2000). “Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.” Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423.

    Meta-analysis: people agree on attractiveness and treat attractive people measurably differently.

How looks affect your life 8
  1. [6]

    Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. (1994). “Beauty and the labor market.” American Economic Review, 84(5), 1174–1194.

    The "beauty premium": rated appearance correlates with measurable earnings differences.

  2. [7]

    Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). “Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245–264.

    In live speed-dating, physical attractiveness predicted romantic interest for everyone.

  3. [8]

    Reis, H. T., Wheeler, L., Spiegel, N., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J., & Perri, M. (1982). “Physical attractiveness in social interaction: II. Why does appearance affect social experience?.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 979–996.

    In a daily-diary study, more attractive people had more day-to-day social interaction — most clearly, more opposite-sex contact for men.

  4. [9]

    Berggren, N., Jordahl, H., & Poutvaara, P. (2010). “The looks of a winner: beauty and electoral success.” Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–2), 8–15.

    Across real elections, candidates’ rated beauty predicted vote share — more than perceived competence.

  5. [10]

    Datta Gupta, N., Etcoff, N. L., & Jaeger, M. M. (2016). “Beauty in mind: the effects of physical attractiveness on psychological well-being and distress.” Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(3), 1313–1325.

    In a decades-long Wisconsin cohort, higher physical attractiveness was associated with greater well-being and less distress.

  6. [11]

    Batres, C., & Shiramizu, V. (2023). “Examining the “attractiveness halo effect” across cultures.” Current Psychology, 42(29), 25515–25519.

    Across 45 countries in 11 world regions, faces rated more attractive were also rated more confident, emotionally stable, intelligent, responsible, sociable and trustworthy.

  7. [12]

    Malik, N., Singh, P. V., & Srinivasan, K. (2024). “When does beauty pay? A large-scale image-based appearance analysis on career transitions.” Information Systems Research, 35(4), 1524–1545.

    Tracking 40,000+ MBA graduates for up to 15 years, attractive graduates earned at least $2,508 a year more than plain-looking ones.

  8. [13]

    Yang, H., Luo, C., & Luo, X. R. (2025). “The effects of anchors’ multimodal features on fan conversion in live-streaming e-commerce.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 29(3), 335–365.

    Across 1,470 sessions on a leading live-streaming platform, hosts’ facial attractiveness increased how many viewers became fans.

Averageness 4
  1. [14]

    Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). “Attractive faces are only average.” Psychological Science, 1(2), 115–121.

    The classic result on average faces.

  2. [15]

    Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). “Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness.” Nature, 368, 239–242.

    Averageness matters — but the most attractive shapes deviate from it systematically.

  3. [16]

    Kleisner, K., Tureček, P., Saribay, S. A., Pavlovič, O., Leongómez, J. D., Roberts, S. C., et al. (2024). “Distinctiveness and femininity, rather than symmetry and masculinity, affect facial attractiveness across the world.” Evolution and Human Behavior, 45(1), 82–90.

    Across 1,550 faces from 10 countries, faces further from their population’s average were rated less attractive, in every population studied.

  4. [17]

    Lee, P., Li, J., Rafiee, Y., Jones, B. C., & Shiramizu, V. K. M. (2025). “Further evidence that averageness and femininity, rather than symmetry and masculinity, predict facial attractiveness.” Scientific Reports, 15, 5498.

    A replication: averageness predicted attractiveness in both sexes and femininity in women; symmetry and masculinity did not.

Symmetry & dimorphism 3
  1. [18]

    Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). “Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness.” Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108(3), 233–242.

    Symmetry and averageness measured against rated attractiveness.

  2. [19]

    Perrett, D. I., et al. (1998). “Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness.” Nature, 394, 884–887.

    The masculine–feminine axis our Dimorphism section reads.

  3. [20]

    Fiala, V., Třebický, V., Pazhoohi, F., Leongómez, J. D., Tureček, P., Saribay, S. A., et al. (2021). “Facial attractiveness and preference of sexual dimorphism: a comparison across five populations.” Evolutionary Human Sciences, 3, e38.

    In five countries, women’s perceived femininity went with attractiveness everywhere; men’s masculinity was preferred in only two.

Skin 2
  1. [21]

    Fink, B., Grammer, K., & Matts, P. J. (2006). “Visible skin color distribution plays a role in the perception of age, attractiveness, and health in female faces.” Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(6), 433–442.

    Skin evenness shifts perceived age and health — why Skin is a full section.

  2. [22]

    Jones, A. L., Porcheron, A., Sweda, J. R., Morizot, F., & Russell, R. (2016). “Coloration in different areas of facial skin is a cue to health: the role of cheek redness and periorbital luminance in health perception.” Body Image, 17, 57–66.

    Brighter skin around the eyes and redder cheeks made the same faces look healthier; dark under-eyes hurt the most.

Health & habits 4
  1. [23]

    Coetzee, V., Perrett, D. I., & Stephen, I. D. (2009). “Facial adiposity: a cue to health?.” Perception, 38(11), 1700–1711.

    Perceived facial fatness tracks real cardiovascular health and reported infections — the face carries genuine health signals.

  2. [24]

    Whitehead, R. D., Re, D., Xiao, D., Ozakinci, G., & Perrett, D. I. (2012). “You are what you eat: within-subject increases in fruit and vegetable consumption confer beneficial skin-color changes.” PLoS ONE, 7(3), e32988.

    Eating more fruit and vegetables measurably shifted skin colour toward a healthier tone within weeks.

  3. [25]

    Sundelin, T., Lekander, M., Sorjonen, K., & Axelsson, J. (2017). “Negative effects of restricted sleep on facial appearance and social appeal.” Royal Society Open Science, 4(5), 160918.

    After two nights of short sleep, the same people were rated less attractive and less healthy, and others were less keen to socialise with them.

  4. [26]

    Hughes, M. C. B., Williams, G. M., Baker, P., & Green, A. C. (2013). “Sunscreen and prevention of skin aging: a randomized trial.” Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(11), 781–790.

    In a randomised trial of 903 adults, daily sunscreen users showed no detectable increase in skin aging over 4.5 years — 24% less aging than occasional users.

The golden ratio, tested 4
  1. [27]

    Holland, E. (2008). “Marquardt’s Phi mask: pitfalls of relying on fashion models and the golden ratio to describe a beautiful face.” Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 32(2), 200–208.

    The golden-ratio mask fails as a beauty standard. We show φ as description, never a verdict.

  2. [28]

    Pallett, P. M., Link, S., & Lee, K. (2010). “New "golden" ratios for facial beauty.” Vision Research, 50(2), 149–154.

    Preferred facial ratios are not the classical φ ratios.

  3. [29]

    Farkas, L. G., Hreczko, T. A., Kolar, J. C., & Munro, I. R. (1985). “Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 75(3), 328–338.

    The neoclassical "ideal proportions" rarely occur in real attractive faces.

  4. [30]

    Zwahlen, R. A., Tang, A. T. H., Leung, W. K., & Tan, S. K. (2022). “Does 3-dimensional facial attractiveness relate to golden ratio, neoclassical canons, ‘ideal’ ratios and ‘ideal’ angles?.” Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 44, 28.

    When 161 people rated 3D faces, attractiveness tracked only a handful of the textbook “ideal” ratios and angles.

How we measure 2
  1. [31]

    Kartynnik, Y., Ablavatski, A., Grishchenko, I., & Grundmann, M. (2019). “Real-time facial surface geometry from monocular video on mobile GPUs.” arXiv:1907.06724.

    The 478-landmark face-mesh model family our measurement engine builds on.

  2. [32]

    Norwood, O. T. (1975). “Male pattern baldness: classification and incidence.” Southern Medical Journal, 68(11), 1359–1365.

    The Norwood scale our hairstyle and facial-hair recommendations respect.

Methodology

The numbers behind the numbers.

Facial landmarks mapped
478
Dense face-mesh landmarking [31], run server-side for month-over-month consistency.
Geometric measurements
45+
Canthal tilt, gonial angle, facial thirds, nasofacial angle, and more — deterministic, not eyeballed.
Analysis dimensions
18
Six whole-face assessments and twelve feature sections, each with its own read.
Upload to report
30 min
Typical turnaround on the live pipeline. Everything is released together, and we email you when it is ready.

The prose is written by frontier AI, and every try-on image is AI-created on your own photo — then aligned back to your original by the measurement engine.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions.

  • What is VeraSoma?

    VeraSoma measures your face from seven photos and turns what it finds into a plan to look your best. You get a research-backed analysis of 18 areas of your face and a personal Aesthetic Blueprint covering skincare, hair and styling, with try-ons on your own photos. The name means "true self": we help you reach the best of yours, without surgery wherever that is possible.

  • Where are my photos stored, and can I delete them?

    In private, encrypted storage keyed to your account. We never sell them or use them to train models. You can delete your account, and everything in it, at any time from your settings. If you cancel instead, we keep your results for 30 days so you can come back, then delete them automatically. Read the privacy policy.

  • What is the difference between the Aesthetic and Advanced Blueprint?

    The Aesthetic Blueprint ($59 a year) is everything you can do yourself: the full 18-section analysis, your personalised Blueprint of skincare, hair and styling, and every try-on gallery. Styling and care can only take you so far, so the Advanced Blueprint ($149 a year) adds what a provider can do — Botox® and fillers, in-office treatments like RF microneedling, and plastic surgery: what each addresses, how reversible it is, and what to ask. It is coming soon and not available to buy yet.

  • How long do results take?

    Usually under 30 minutes from your final upload. Everything is released together once it is all ready, and we email you. The portal shows progress while it runs.

  • Can I cancel, or get a refund?

    Cancel anytime from your account settings; your access continues to the end of the year you paid for. You can have a full refund until you start an analysis. Once an analysis has started, the membership is non-refundable.

  • Will you give me a beauty score or a percentile?

    No — and be suspicious of anyone who does. A population percentile requires a licensed, measurement-grade dataset; we don’t show one until we have one. You get real measurements, literature reference ranges, and a clearly-labelled subjective impression instead.

  • Is this a medical service?

    No. VeraSoma is an aesthetic information service grounded in published research. It is not a medical diagnosis. Always consult a qualified clinician before any procedure.

  • Can it show me what surgery would look like?

    Not yet. Everything in your Blueprint today — every try-on and your ideal-self image — is styling and care only. The Advanced Blueprint, coming soon, will show what injectables, in-office treatments and plastic surgery could address, as clearly-labelled simulations of a typical result, never a best case. The dimorphism morph, which does shift structure, is labelled as an exploration, not a result you can buy.

  • What actually makes a face attractive?

    Research points to a few cues people share across cultures: averageness, symmetry, how masculine or feminine a face reads, and even, healthy-looking skin. A single "golden ratio" is not one of them; the studies that tested it are in our list. Your analysis reads your symmetry, how masculine or feminine your face reads, and your skin. See the studies.

  • Why do I look different in photos than in the mirror?

    A mirror shows your face flipped left to right, and that is the version you are used to. A photo shows it the right way round, the way everyone else sees you. Your analysis is measured from your photos, so it reads the face other people see.

Under 30 minutes to an honest answer.

Seven photos. 478 landmarks. A report that tells you what it knows — and what it doesn’t.

Start your analysis