Eye-to-Mouth Ratio
The vertical distance from your eyes to your mouth, relative to overall face height.
| Reference value | 0.404 eye-to-mouth distance ÷ face height |
|---|---|
| Weight in composite | 5% |
| Category | Proportions |
Where the mouth sits below the eyes
This measures how far the mouth sits below the eye line as a fraction of total facial height. It captures the vertical placement of the central features rather than their size — the same mouth positioned slightly higher or lower changes the impression of the whole face considerably, and it is one of the proportions people notice without being able to articulate.
Vertical only, so head roll barely matters
MogTracker measures from the eye line to the mouth line and divides by facial height, referencing 0.404. Because it uses vertical distances only, head roll affects it far less than metrics measured along the horizontal axis.
Near-ceiling for almost everyone
The composite gives this 5%, level with lower-third proportions. It is closely tied to facial thirds — both read vertical structure — so they tend to move together, and a poor score here usually appears alongside a poor lower-third result rather than in isolation.
How 123,813 people score on eye-to-mouth ratio
Nearly the entire corpus sits in the top band, and hardly anyone lands at the bottom — the tightest clustering of any metric here. Vertical feature placement simply does not vary much between faces, so this measurement has very little to separate. It is a reasonable sanity check that the scan tracked your face correctly, and close to useless as a point of comparison against anyone else.
| Score band | Share | % | Scans |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–19 | 0.1% | 180 | |
| 20–39 | 0.9% | 1,112 | |
| 40–59 | 2.3% | 2,831 | |
| 60–79 | 10.0% | 12,393 | |
| 80–100 | 86.7% | 107,297 |
Mean 90.89 out of 100 — the second-highest average of all 16 metrics. Figures from MogTracker's own scans, captured 2026-08-14.
How to improve your eye-to-mouth ratio
Research shows the most attractive faces have eye-to-mouth distance at ~36% of face height.
Recommendations are grouped by how invasive they are. Non-invasive options change how the feature reads to an observer; surgical options change the underlying structure and therefore the measurement itself.
If you scored Excellent
Your eye-to-mouth placement is ideal — features are vertically balanced.
Non-invasive
- Your feature placement is optimal — maintain current brow position and grooming
If you scored Good
Your eye-to-mouth ratio is close to ideal. Brow adjustments can fine-tune it.
Non-invasive
- Eyebrow height adjustment via grooming shifts perceived eye position
- Hair framing at the forehead affects perceived face height ratio
If you scored Average
Your midface proportion is slightly off — eyes or mouth appear vertically displaced.
Non-invasive
- Eyebrow positioning through threading and grooming shifts perceived eye placement
- Hair length and framing choices affect where the eye naturally rests on the face
If you scored Below average
Your midface is notably long or short — eye-to-mouth distance is off from the ideal 36%.
Non-invasive
- Aggressive brow repositioning through grooming for maximum visual shift
- Forehead-covering hairstyles can visually reset where features appear on the face
Common questions about eye-to-mouth ratio
Can this be changed?
Not meaningfully without surgery. It is set by the vertical position of the maxilla and mandible.
Why did I score highly on this without doing anything?
Nearly everyone does. Vertical feature placement varies little between faces, so almost the entire corpus lands in the top band. A high score here is the ordinary result rather than a distinguishing one.