Video summary

He Regrets Buying His $175 QOVES Facial Analysis

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

What product is being reviewed?

A “Qoves facial analysis” report—described as a looksmaxing facial analysis costing $175—is reviewed by the video creator. The reviewer then “audits” or benchmarks it against their own tools: Face Symmetry Labs / Face IQ Labs (described as AI-based with objective measurements, ratios, and simulations).

Key features mentioned about Qoves (from the review)

The reviewer says Qoves provides a structured facial assessment with sections including:

  • Dimorphism (masculinity/femininity classification and explanations)
  • Predictions / overall rating
  • Averageness
  • Proportions (facial thirds and ratios)
  • Symmetry (symmetry score + explanation)
  • Face shape / widths (e.g., oval shape, midface/forehead/lower third)
  • Detailed descriptive analysis for features such as:
    • Eyebrows / eyes / nose / lips / jaw / chin / ears / hairline
  • A “Protocol” section with recommendations

Criticism: descriptive language vs actionable targets

The reviewer argues Qoves often uses descriptive phrasing like “average,” “positive tilt,” or “soft jaw” instead of clearly stating:

  • specific ideal targets
  • explicit “how far off” ratios or measurements

Ratings / numerical scores cited (from Qoves)

  • Predicted dimorphism / overall expectation (reviewer): expected around 5 to 5.25, later described as about 5
  • Qoves dimorphism: about 4.8
  • Averageness: 78%
  • Proportionality: 88%
  • Symmetry (Qoves): 92 (described as “highly symmetric” / “highly harmonious”)
  • Eyebrow density: 64/100
  • Eye / lash / under-eye metrics (as described):
    • Lash: 66/100
    • Under-eye health discussed descriptively (not fully numeric in the summary)
  • Jaw assessment:
    • Jaw width called “narrow”
    • Jaw angle: 139°
  • Chin balance: 72/100 (the reviewer disputes the basis)

(The reviewer also reports that their own labs often return values they consider more “objective,” “ideal,” and “accurate.”)

Main pros mentioned (balanced with cons)

What the reviewer concedes Qoves does well

  • Report flow/design: the review praises the “nice flow of the report” and overall presentation.
  • Symmetry section: the reviewer suggests Qoves likely did well here:
    • Qoves symmetry score 92
    • reviewer characterizes it as “pretty fair” / a good job
  • Hair/temple placement: partial credit to Qoves for temple placement, possibly because a human may have placed obscured points better when hair covered landmarks.
  • Readability & morph/simulation style: readable descriptions and a “before/after morph” style are implied to appeal to some fans.

Main cons (core of the review)

1) Dimorphism and masculinity categorization disputed

  • Qoves explanation: the user is “masculine” due to the brow/eye complex, nose structure, cheeks, neck, etc.
  • Reviewer’s disagreement:
    • Neck is described as thin
    • jaw/bone mass not strongly hyper-masculine
    • claim: Face Symmetry Labs returns bottom 48% dimorphism, and therefore Qoves is inaccurate.

2) Proportions / landmark placement errors

The reviewer repeatedly claims Qoves places measurement points slightly wrong.

  • Example: a nasofrontal angle is labeled in a way the reviewer says is off (and they claim their own lab agrees with the mismatch in some places).
  • Stronger example: a distance ratio:
    • Qoves shows 1.18 to 1
    • Face IQ Labs supposedly indicates an “ideal” around 1.05
    • reviewer argues the error comes from incorrect landmark placement at a millimeter-level.

3) “Average/positive” statements lack actionable targets

A major complaint: Qoves gives descriptive conclusions but not enough quantification for improvement.

The reviewer says Qoves provides things like:

  • Averageness 78%
  • “positive canthal tilt”
  • clinically “not too recessed/not too forward”

But the reviewer argues users need:

  • a score
  • an ideal target
  • the exact gap (millimeters / percentage points)
  • what improvement would look like

They contrast this with their own labs, which provide:

  • simulations
  • distance/ratio deltas

4) Eyes: “positive tilt” disputed (insufficient precision)

  • Qoves marks canthal tilt as positive.
  • Reviewer says “positive” is too vague:
    • they claim their labs show it’s still insufficient relative to the ideal
    • they emphasize the ability to simulate where eyes would land at an ideal value.

5) Jaw/chin metrics: major alleged inconsistencies

  • Jaw angle
    • Qoves: 139°
    • reviewer claims their labs indicate around 128°
    • they argue 139° doesn’t reconcile with the image/geometry.
  • Chin recession/projection
    • reviewer says Qoves undercalls the issue
    • they perform a Frankfort plane-based check and estimate chin recession at about 4.7 mm (≈ 5 mm genioplasty).

6) Ears/hair/other points sometimes disputed

  • Ears: reviewer says ear ratings seemed inconsistent with their own lab checks.
    • eventual note: protrusion/flare may be within normal, but some assessments were still off.
  • Additional micro-criticisms:
    • alleged landmark misplacement
    • reliance on ambiguous categories

User experience (as described)

  • The Qoves report includes:
    • lots of text explanations
    • a “protocol” section
    • visual morph/simulation elements (the reviewer suggests these are a reason some fans like it)
  • Reviewer’s experience:
    • the report can be hard to interpret or action
    • it allegedly doesn’t quantify “how far from ideal” enough
    • the reviewer analogizes it to a medical need (“What’s my exact A1C vs ideal?”)

Comparison made with similar products/tools

This comparison is framed primarily between:

  • Qoves
  • Face Symmetry Labs / Face IQ Labs (“Face Labs ecosystem”)

Reviewer’s claim: Face Labs is better

The reviewer repeatedly argues Face Labs wins because it offers:

  • more objective AI-based measurements
  • better point placement (fewer millimeter-level errors, per reviewer)
  • ideal targets, ratios/scoring, and simulations showing score impact

Reviewer’s partial concession

Despite criticizing Qoves overall, the reviewer notes:

  • Qoves may have better aesthetics/flow
  • Qoves may do better at point placement in obstructed areas (e.g., temples)
  • Qoves symmetry appears relatively accurate

Overall recommendation / verdict (concise)

  • Not recommended at its current price.
  • Price critique:
    • Qoves report: $175
    • surgical recommendations/protocol: another ~$180
    • total described as ~$300
    • reviewer says it isn’t worth it versus their own labs (described as far cheaper)
  • Final stance:
    • Face Symmetry Labs / Face IQ Labs is presented as “brutally better” due to accuracy, ratios, and simulation-based actionable feedback
    • Qoves is viewed as too descriptive and sometimes inaccurate, with symmetry as the main partial exception

Unique points mentioned (consolidated)

  1. Qoves report costs $175, and surgery recs add ~$180 more.
  2. Reviewer compares the predicted “overall” rating vs Face Labs results (Qoves expected ~5 to 5.25; Face Labs ~5-ish mentioned).
  3. Dimorphism category disagreement is emphasized, especially around neck/jaw masculinity.
  4. Reviewer says Qoves uses descriptive explanations without sufficient quantitative deltas.
  5. Landmark placement errors are alleged at a millimeter-level affecting ratios.
  6. Reviewer argues “average” is not necessarily “attractive” and critiques reliance on population averages.
  7. Eye tilt labeled “positive” by Qoves, but reviewer says it still isn’t ideal and needs degree-based precision + simulation.
  8. Nasofrontal/eye spacing/nose proportional ratios are contested with numeric contrasts.
  9. Reported scores include 88% proportionality and 78% averageness.
  10. Symmetry is presented as a notable positive: 92.
  11. Jaw/chin metrics disputed: reviewer estimates chin recession around ~4.7 mm (~5 mm) using Frankfort plane methods.
  12. Reviewer values Face Labs’ ability to simulate changes and show how the score changes.
  13. Reviewer claims Qoves “protocol” feels like an advertisement and lacks quantitative improvement targets.
  14. Overall conclusion: Qoves is overpriced and less actionable despite good presentation.

Speaker contributions (different views)

  • Main reviewer/host (dominant):
    • fact-checking Qoves against Face Labs
    • criticizing accuracy, quantification, and landmark placement
    • providing most numeric comparisons and the surgical millimeter discussion
  • Guest/other speaker (intermittent):
    • personal reactions (e.g., “boring,” “I disagree,” comments about chin/ears)
    • partial agreement/disagreement on specific sections (e.g., eyebrows/eyes/lips)

Original video