An investigation by the Guardian examines the rise of paid "facial analysis" services, such as Qoves, Facemaxify and Epica, which claim to use science to score users' attractiveness and recommend cosmetic procedures. These tools have grown out of "looksmaxxing" culture, an online movement that treats beauty as something quantifiable and improvable through surgery and injectables, and critics warn the services lack genuine scientific backing while potentially causing psychological harm to vulnerable users.

The article follows Danielle, a 37-year-old former model who paid $330 for a 30-page Qoves report after seeing the service promoted on TikTok during a period of financial insecurity. The report recommended a lengthy list of surgical and non-surgical interventions, including rhinoplasty, blepharoplasty, chin implants, filler and Botox, and Qoves markets itself by claiming attractive people receive preferential treatment in life, from employment to the courtroom, a claim partly supported by research into the "halo effect". Qoves offers packages from $150 for non-surgical advice up to $330 with surgical recommendations, while cheaper AI-driven alternatives like Facemaxify and Epica offer similar facial scoring.