Cheekbone-to-Jaw Ratio
Cheekbone width against jaw width — the taper that defines whether a face reads as angular or square.
| Reference (male) | 1.108 cheekbone width ÷ jaw width |
|---|---|
| Reference (female) | 1.178 cheekbone width ÷ jaw width |
| Weight in composite | 10% |
| Category | Jaw |
The taper of the lower face
Bizygomatic width is the span across the cheekbones at their widest; bigonial width is the span across the jaw at the gonial angles, where the mandible turns upward toward the ear. The ratio between them describes the taper of the lower face. A high ratio means cheekbones considerably wider than the jaw, producing a V-taper; a ratio near 1.0 means the jaw is nearly as wide as the cheekbones, reading square.
Two spans, one ratio, different targets by sex
Both spans are read from the landmark mesh and divided. The reference differs meaningfully by sex — 1.108 for men against 1.178 for women — reflecting that a relatively wider jaw reads as harmonious on male faces and a stronger taper on female ones. This is one of the clearest cases where a single unisex target would misscore half the users.
The heavy metric body composition can actually move
Its 10% weight puts it third, behind facial thirds and canthal tilt, which are tied at the top. It is also the metric most affected by body composition: submental and jawline fat blur the gonial landmarks and pull the measurement toward a wider apparent jaw. Very little else in the set moves without intervention.
How 123,813 people score on cheekbone-to-jaw ratio
Scores lean high, with very few faces in the bottom band — the mesh rarely places the jaw wider than the cheekbones. The gap between the male and female averages is one of the widest in the set, and it is a property of the two reference values rather than of the faces being measured: women are scored against a stronger taper, and the female sample scores closer to its own reference than the male sample does to its.
| Score band | Share | % | Scans |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–19 | 0.8% | 990 | |
| 20–39 | 6.0% | 7,415 | |
| 40–59 | 14.7% | 18,141 | |
| 60–79 | 25.2% | 31,241 | |
| 80–100 | 53.3% | 66,026 |
Mean 76.34 out of 100 — 5th highest average of the 16 metrics. Figures from MogTracker's own scans, captured 2026-08-14.
How to improve your cheekbone-to-jaw ratio
Ideal cheekbones are ~30–35% wider than the jaw, creating a tapered, sculpted appearance.
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 cheekbone-to-jaw ratio is ideal — well-defined taper from zygomatic arch to gonion.
Non-invasive
- Maintain body fat in the 12–18% range to preserve facial structure definition
- Continue mastic gum chewing to maintain masseter tone if currently doing so
If you scored Good
Your cheekbone-jaw ratio is strong. Minor definition improvements possible.
Non-invasive
- Reduce body fat slightly to sharpen cheekbone definition
- Mastic gum chewing builds masseter muscle for better jaw angles
Minimally invasive
- Small amount of cheekbone filler for added zygomatic projection
If you scored Average
Your cheekbone-jaw taper is moderate. Building definition here improves overall face shape.
Non-invasive
- Body fat reduction reveals hidden cheekbone structure
- Beard styling at jaw angles adds perceived bigonial width
- Regular mastic gum chewing builds masseter definition over 3–6 months
Minimally invasive
- Cheekbone fillers for zygomatic projection (lasts 12–18 months)
- Jawline filler adds definition at the gonial angles
If you scored Below average
Your face lacks the cheekbone-jaw taper — either cheekbones are flat or jaw is too wide/narrow relative to them.
Non-invasive
- Aggressive body fat reduction to reveal bone structure underneath
- Beard styling essential: shape at jaw angles to add or reduce perceived width
- Mastic gum chewing + jaw exercises for masseter hypertrophy
Minimally invasive
- Cheekbone fillers + jawline filler combo for structural reshaping
Surgical
- Cheek implants (malar placement) for permanent zygomatic projection
- Jaw angle implants for defined bigonial width and jawline
Common questions about cheekbone-to-jaw ratio
Does losing weight change this score?
It can, more than most metrics. Fat around the jawline shifts where the mesh places the gonial landmarks, so reducing it tends to sharpen the measured taper. Bone position itself does not change.
Why is the target different for men and women?
The two reference faces measure differently here, at 1.108 and 1.178. A relatively wider jaw reads as harmonious on a male face and a stronger cheekbone-to-jaw taper on a female one, so a single unisex target would misscore one group or the other.
Does mewing or chewing gum change this score?
There is no good evidence that either moves adult bone. Reducing submental fat changes where the mesh finds the jaw landmarks, and that does move the number — the mechanism is soft tissue, not bone remodelling.