Method
Independent assessments of the software aesthetic practices buy, built entirely from publicly available material. Public prices are linked to their source; any non-public figure is clearly labeled with its basis and confidence.
Basis
No vendor funds this work, reviews it before publication, or receives advance notice of its findings. This site carries no affiliate links and takes no vendor money. Every assessment is built from public sources; figures that are not public are marked as estimates with their basis and confidence stated.
- No vendor funding
- No affiliate links
- No paid placement
- No vendor sees a page before it ships
- Every estimate is labelled as one
Plastic surgery simulators: the 2026 assessment
This is an independent assessment based on public evidence and hands-on use where access was available. The performance score combines result quality at 70%, result control at 15% and ease of use at 15%. Price and disclosure status are shown separately as buying information and do not affect the performance score. AR, VR, 3D and 4D labels earn no credit by themselves. Face and body are assessed separately, and B2C apps never share a ranking with clinic B2B or CT-based planning systems.
- Result quality
- Visual realism, patient identity preservation and, where available, consistency across video frames and viewpoints.
- Clinic price
- Price and disclosure status are shown for purchasing context but do not change the performance score.
- Result control
- How precisely the operator can direct a result and revise it beyond fixed presets.
- Ease of use
- Capture burden, interface architecture, first-time learning, operator training and whether current tools such as LLM guidance make control easier. Higher is easier.