VERASOMA

Peer-reviewed research × frontier AI

Improve your looks without surgery.

Measured, not flattered. Understand your facial features and take action today with a personalized plan designed for your unique facial features.

Start your analysis How it works
Based on science22 linked studies
Measured478 landmarks, server-side
Non-surgicalgrooming & styling only
Honestwe say what we can’t measure

A smarter route

Stop guessing. Start measuring.

The guesswork way

  1. Step 1

    Guess what’s "wrong"

  2. Step 2

    Scroll conflicting advice

  3. Step 3

    Buy products blind

  4. Step 4

    No measurements

  5. Step 5

    Nothing changes

The VERASOMA way

  1. Step 1

    Upload 7 photos

  2. Step 2

    478-landmark measurement

  3. Step 3

    Evidence-grounded read

  4. Step 4

    Plan + try-ons on your face

  5. Step 5

    Track real change

Why it matters

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

Eight findings from the published literature — each linked to the paper. None of this means appearance is destiny. It means understanding your face is worth fifteen minutes.

How it works

Upload to insight in about 15 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, 40+ measurements computed, and frontier AI writes the plain-language read for each of the 19 dimensions.

  3. 03

    Blueprint + galleries land

    Your Aesthetic Blueprint PDF, hairstyle try-on, and grooming galleries arrive together — about 15 minutes after upload, with live progress.

  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

An instrument panel for your face.

Every measurement rendered with its literature reference range — never a fake percentile — plus closed-set classifications and plain-language prose for all 19 dimensions.

Actual portal interface, shown with illustrative values.

Before / after

Every VERASOMA try-on is rendered on your own photo and limited to grooming and styling — cut, beard, colour, skin, framing. Drag to compare the kind of change a plan targets.

Illustrative male portrait before grooming changes Illustrative male portrait after grooming changes: mid fade, boxed beard, skin routine Before After
Men — cut · facial hair · skin
Illustrative female portrait before styling changes Illustrative female portrait after styling changes: layered cut, warm shade, soft makeup Before After
Women — cut · colour · makeup

Browse a full sample report

What you get

One upload. Eight deliverables.

  • 19-dimension facial analysis

    40+ geometric measurements and closed-set classifications across 19 analysis dimensions, each explained in plain language.

  • The Aesthetic Blueprint

    A downloadable editorial PDF report: per-feature chapters, an AM/PM skin routine, and recommendations ranked by leverage.

  • Hairstyle try-on

    Nine cuts selected for your face shape and hair pattern, rendered on your own photo — not a stock model.

  • Grooming galleries

    Facial-hair styles for men; a complete Beauty Look for women — your recommended cuts with coordinated colour and makeup, selected on your face shape and undertone.

  • Undertone & coloring

    A Warm / Neutral / Cool undertone read that drives which colours the galleries recommend.

  • Dimorphism morphs

    Your face shifted along the masculine–feminine axis — an exploration, not a promise.

  • Your ideal self, honestly

    One image of you at your groomed best. Grooming only, by design: it never edits your bone structure.

  • Progression tracking

    Each new analysis sits beside your last, side by side. Change measured, not guessed.

What we won’t tell you

Honest enough to say what we can’t measure.

Most tools in this category sell certainty they don’t have. Our limits are part of the product.

  1. No fake percentiles.

    A "you are in the 73rd percentile" claim needs a measurement-grade population dataset. Until we license one, we don’t show population percentiles — ours or anyone else’s. What you get instead is honest: measurements, literature reference ranges, and a clearly-labelled subjective read.

  2. No golden-ratio verdicts.

    The φ mask and the neoclassical canons fail peer review as beauty standards. We show these ratios as description — never as your target.

  3. Non-surgical by design.

    Every try-on and the ideal-self image are grooming and styling only. We never render your bones reshaped and call it achievable.

  4. Your face stays your face.

    Generated images are identity-preserving and aligned to your original photo. No stock models, no composite "after" that isn’t you.

  5. Every number on this page is checkable.

    478 landmarks, 40+ measurements, 19 dimensions, 22 linked studies. If we can’t back a claim, it doesn’t ship.

Pricing

Less than a single consult. Renewed yearly.

  • Aesthetic Blueprint

    $59 per year

    • Full 19-dimension facial analysis
    • Personalised Aesthetic Blueprint (PDF included)
    • Hairstyle try-on + grooming galleries on your own photos
    • Dimorphism morphs + undertone read
    • 1 analysis per year
    • Cancel anytime
    Get started

  • Coming soon

    Advanced Blueprint

    $149 per year

    Everything in your Aesthetic Blueprint, plus an honest, clearly-labelled look at what in-office and surgical options address — so you arrive at a provider’s consultation better informed. Not available yet, and it won’t pretend to be.

The science

22 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.

Reviews & foundations 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]

    Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). “Facial attractiveness.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 452–460.

    Why faces carry the signals they do — the evolutionary framing.

  4. [4]

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

    How clinical 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.

Averageness 2
  1. [6]

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

    The classic result behind our Averageness section.

  2. [7]

    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.

Symmetry & dimorphism 2
  1. [8]

    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. [9]

    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.

Skin 1
  1. [10]

    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.

Health & lifestyle cues 2
  1. [21]

    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. [22]

    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.

Real-world outcomes 5
  1. [11]

    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. [12]

    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. [18]

    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. [19]

    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. [20]

    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.

Why we don’t score you against the golden ratio 3
  1. [13]

    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. [14]

    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. [15]

    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.

The instruments 2
  1. [16]

    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. [17]

    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 [16], run server-side for month-over-month consistency.
Geometric measurements
40+
Canthal tilt, gonial angle, facial thirds, nasofacial angle, and more — deterministic, not eyeballed.
Analysis dimensions
19
Six whole-face assessments, twelve feature sections, one synthesis overview.
Upload to report
~15 min
Measured turnaround on the live pipeline, with stage-by-stage progress.

The prose is written by frontier AI (Anthropic Claude), and every try-on image is generated by the latest OpenAI image model on your own photo — then aligned back to your original by the measurement engine.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Can it show me what surgery would look like?

    No. Every generated image is grooming and styling only — we never render structural change and imply it’s achievable. The one exploration that shifts structure, the dimorphism morph, is labelled as an axis exploration, not a result you can buy.

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

    The Aesthetic Blueprint is what you can do yourself: the full 19-dimension analysis, your personalised plan, and every gallery, once a year. The Advanced Blueprint will add what a provider can do — what in-office and surgical options address, how reversible they are, and what to ask. It is not available yet.

  • How long do results take?

    About 15 minutes from final upload to a ready report. The portal shows live progress through every stage while it runs.

  • Where are my photos stored?

    In a private, encrypted bucket keyed to your account. They are never used to train third-party models. See our /legal/privacy-policy for the full detail.

Fifteen 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