AI-powered beauty services are putting a high-tech spin on the increasingly popular 'looksmaxxing' trend, promising women a scientific way to measure their attractiveness and improve their appearance. But experts are warning that the technology could turn everyday facial features into perceived flaws–while steering vulnerable users towards costly cosmetic procedures.
For some women, the experience goes far beyond skincare or make-up tips. Facial analysis services can produce detailed reports assessing everything from the proportions of a nose to the perceived femininity of a face, with recommendations that can include Botox, fillers and surgery. Critics now question whether these tools are genuinely helping users or simply creating new insecurities that can be monetised.
A $330 (£247) Beauty Report
Danielle, 37, discovered Qoves through TikTok after a period of unemployment left her questioning her appearance and confidence.
'It was easy to wonder, if I was prettier, if some of my features were different, would that help?' she said.
She paid $330 (£247) for a personalised report after the service promoted itself as offering 'science-backed' glow-up advice. The resulting 30-page assessment scored features including her ear shape and femininity.
But the recommendations went far beyond beauty products. Danielle was advised to consider rhinoplasty, lower blepharoplasty, canthopexy, chin implants and malarplasty, alongside microblading, lash enhancements, fillers and Botox.
The sheer scale of the recommendations left her believing the beauty standard promoted online could be almost impossible to achieve without significant spending.
'I do believe that the standard I've acquired for what's beautiful is impossible to achieve without spending thousands of dollars,' she said.
When Looksmaxxing Turns Features Into Flaws
The services have emerged alongside 'looksmaxxing', an online movement built around the idea that attractiveness can be analysed, quantified and optimised.
The trend has often been associated with young men, but its principles are increasingly reaching women through TikTok, YouTube and beauty-focused platforms. The goal is often described as achieving 'facial harmony' by changing the proportions or appearance of individual features.
Qoves charges $150 (£113) for non-surgical recommendations, with an additional $180 (£135) upgrade for surgical suggestions. Other services, including Epica and Facemaxify, use AI or facial analysis tools to assess features and provide beauty or skincare recommendations.
That commercial model is raising concerns because the same process that identifies a supposed problem can also lead users towards products or procedures designed to address it.
Experts Question the Science
Experts quoted in the original reporting have challenged the idea that beauty can be reliably reduced to universal measurements.
Dr. Justin Mogilski, a psychology professor who co-authored research cited by Qoves when discussing masculine and feminine facial characteristics, said his research was based on a limited population and should not be treated as a universal beauty formula.
'Do findings like mine generalise to every single population that makes up the world or a country? Or within every context where the attractiveness of a given feature can vary based on local ecology or culture? They do not,' he said.
Dr. Mitch Brown, an assistant professor of psychological science who has studied attraction for more than a decade, was similarly sceptical.
'I don't think the science is anywhere clear enough to do that. I would caution anyone against that,' he said.
'So Destructive' for Vulnerable Women
The psychological impact is perhaps the most troubling part of the trend. Dr. Tracy Vaillancourt, a psychology professor at the University of Ottawa, warned that facial analysis could be particularly damaging for people already struggling with body image.
'These sorts of things are so destructive to people with body dysmorphia, dysphoria, a history of eating disorders and people with low self-esteem,' she said.
She also questioned whether age restrictions provide enough protection, particularly when users are largely expected to self-report concerns about their mental health. Her concern is that an appearance-focused service could encourage a cycle of comparison in which users never feel attractive enough.
Are Beauty Standards Being Built Into AI?
There are also questions about whose idea of beauty these systems are measuring.
The original reporting raised concerns that some promotional material from facial-analysis services appears to favour traditionally Eurocentric characteristics, including slimmer noses and larger, double-lidded eyes.
Qoves has said its analyses can account for facial characteristics associated with different demographics. However, experts have questioned whether existing research into attractiveness is broad enough to support universal recommendations.
That matters when an algorithm presents a score as if it were an objective measurement rather than an interpretation shaped by data, culture and assumptions.
The Score Can Change With a Selfie
The technology itself may also be less definitive than its polished presentation suggests. During testing, one facial analysis service produced a 'skin health' score of 61%. After another selfie was taken under different lighting, the score rose to 81%.
That experience illustrates the central concern surrounding AI beauty scans. A user can be introduced to features they had never previously considered problematic, given a numerical score and then presented with products or procedures to change them.
For critics of looksmaxxing, the question is no longer simply whether AI can analyse a face. It is whether technology is helping women feel more confident–or teaching them to find faults they never knew they had, before offering an increasingly expensive way to fix them.
