Emerald Cut Cubic Zirconia: Pros, Cons & Fire

Our emerald cut is a rectangle of steps with cropped corners, 1.5 to 1, with 57 facets over a 41.0° pavilion, on a stone 68.6% deep. That pavilion is steeper than the 38.1° guide minimum we give for round designs, so steepening is not what our data supports.

Against the T73 in CZ it wins twice, on fire and, narrowly, on face for its weight. It loses five times, and by more; we show the three largest: light, the regularity of its pavilion and leakage. Sparkle (72 against 80) and Tilt (81 against 87) also fall short. The fourth cost shown, weight, is the material's.

Is an emerald cut right for cubic zirconia? Pros and cons

Pros

More fire than the T73 in CZ 92 vs 87
A little more face for its weight 105 vs 100

Cons

Heavy, as CZ always is 3.81 vs 2.31 ct
About three-fifths of the T73's light 59 vs 98
A less regular pavilion 64 vs 100
A quarter of the light leaks 25 vs 1

Compared with the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia and with the Emerald Cut in diamond. A difference counts from 3 points (Brilliance, Fire, Tilt, Leakage), 5 (Scintillation, Symmetry), 4% (face-up size per carat) or 5% (weight); Tilt counts as a pro only for a stone within 5 points of the brilliance it is compared with. How we measure.

All eight scores against the T73

At a glance: the Emerald Cut in cubic zirconia (white) against the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia (dashed): solid white where it reaches further, hatched where it falls short. Each pro and con is explained, with pictures, below.

Against the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: ahead on 1, behind on 7.

Global72, the comparison 93, difference −21
Brilliance59, the comparison 98, difference −39
Fire92, the comparison 87, difference +5
Scintillation72, the comparison 80, difference −8
Spread96, the comparison 100, difference −4
Symmetry64, the comparison 100, difference −36
Shape-norm77, the comparison 106, difference −29
Tilt81, the comparison 87, difference −6

Face-up light census, a different measure from the Cut Grading Tool; Spread and Shape-norm above 100 sit on the ring. Spread is the census's estimate from depth alone; the face-up size in the pros and cons is measured from each model's outline.

Open it in the Cut Performance Wheel

What the emerald cut gives cubic zirconia

More fire than the T73 in CZ

Fire 92 against 87 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 5 points higher

Here CZ is set against CZ, so the gain is the cut's, not the material's. It also leads the emerald cut in diamond, at 87.

Emerald cut in cubic zirconia face-up under a single bright light: a render from our simulator, its coloured flashes are the fire (score 92) — Look at the coloured flashes: those are fire. Same light, same size, same face-up angle; rendered by our 3D Gemstone Simulator from each cut's own model.

T73 round brilliant in cubic zirconia face-up under a single bright light: a render from our simulator, its coloured flashes are the fire (score 87) — Look at the coloured flashes: those are fire. Same light, same size, same face-up angle; rendered by our 3D Gemstone Simulator from each cut's own model.

Try it yourself: See the fire in the 3D Gemstone Simulator

A little more face for its weight

Face-up size 105 against 100 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia (T73 = 100): 5% more face-up area for the same weight

Measured from the outline, an emerald cut of a given weight covers slightly more area than the T73. The margin is small, and it comes despite a depth of 68.6% against the round's 61.7%.

Emerald Cut · 6.24 x 4.16 mm at 1.00 ct · Face-up size 105

T73 Round Brilliant · 5.49 mm at 1.00 ct · Face-up size 100

Both stones weigh 1.00 ct in cubic zirconia and are drawn to the same scale in millimetres, from each cut's own model. Face-up size is the outline's area per carat, with the T73 at 100: a deeper stone, or a rounder outline, spreads less area for its weight.

Try it yourself: See its size at 1.00 ct in cubic zirconia in the 3D Gemstone Simulator

The catch with an emerald cut CZ

Heavy, as CZ always is

3.81 ct at 6.5 mm, against 2.31 ct for the same cut in diamond (+65%)

At about 5.8 in specific gravity, CZ is the densest of the seven stones on this site. Ours, 6.5 mm wide, weighs 3.81 ct, where the diamond version weighs 2.31 ct.

A Emerald Cut 6.5 mm across, weighed from the model's measured volume and each stone's specific gravity.

What helps: Order it by length and width in millimetres.

Try it yourself: Weights in all seven gemstones on the Emerald Cut page

About three-fifths of the T73's light

Brilliance 59 against 98 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 39 points lower

Broad flat steps hand light back in a few large planes, where a brilliant's pavilion gathers it from many angles. The census gives 59, a few points above the diamond version's 55 and far below the T73's 98.

Emerald cut in cubic zirconia face-up Light Return map: red, green and blue show where the light returns from, grey shows where it leaks (Brilliance 59) — Red, green and blue = light returning to the eye; grey = light leaving through the pavilion. This is the head-on view; the Brilliance score averages a wider cone of light, so the score can differ from what one picture shows.

T73 round brilliant in cubic zirconia face-up Light Return map: red, green and blue show where the light returns from, grey shows where it leaks (Brilliance 98) — Red, green and blue = light returning to the eye; grey = light leaving through the pavilion. This is the head-on view; the Brilliance score averages a wider cone of light, so the score can differ from what one picture shows.

What helps: No long outline we measure in CZ does much better: the Marquise Cut Cubic Zirconia returns 66. On a square, the Asscher Cut Cubic Zirconia keeps the steps and returns 74.

Try it yourself: Open this Light Return map in the simulator

A less regular pavilion

Symmetry 64 against 100 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 36 points lower

Its pavilion facets repeat less evenly than a round's, 64: the third lowest symmetry score in our CZ census. That is the plan itself, and the diamond version scores the same.

Emerald Cut · 57 facets · Symmetry 64

T73 Round Brilliant · 73 facets · Symmetry 100

Symmetry scores how regular the pavilion facets are within the design. Compare how evenly the facets repeat around each pavilion. Drawn from each cut's own model.

What helps: It is the design. The Emerald Square Cut Cubic Zirconia puts the same idea on a square and scores 100.

Try it yourself: Compare the Symmetry spoke in the Cut Performance Wheel

A quarter of the light leaks

Leakage 25 against 1 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 24 points higher

25% of the light in our census leaves through the pavilion, the same share as the diamond emerald cut loses, against 1% for the T73 in CZ.

Emerald cut in cubic zirconia tilted 0 degrees: Light Return map, 27% of the face leaking — Each frame is the Light Return map with the stone tilted away from you by the angle shown; grey is light leaving through the pavilion. The share under each frame is that picture's own.

Emerald cut in cubic zirconia tilted 10 degrees: Light Return map, 29% of the face leaking — Each frame is the Light Return map with the stone tilted away from you by the angle shown; grey is light leaving through the pavilion. The share under each frame is that picture's own.

What helps: Steepening is not the fix: the pavilion already stands at 41.0°. The Asscher Cut Cubic Zirconia leaks 15%.

Try it yourself: Tilt it yourself in the simulator's light map

Who an emerald cut CZ suits

Choose the emerald cut in CZ for long, calm steps and plenty of colour, in a ring or pendant where the outline matters more than the most light. Step facets show the inside of a stone plainly, and CZ is normally clean.

For more light with steps, the Asscher Cut Cubic Zirconia or the Octagon Cut Cubic Zirconia (76). When light comes before everything, the T73 Round Brilliant Cubic Zirconia.

Emerald Cut Cubic Zirconia: questions

Is an emerald cut good for cubic zirconia?

For fire, yes: Fire 92, above the T73's 87, though from far less returned light. For light it gives up a lot, Brilliance 59 against 98.

Why is an emerald cut CZ less brilliant than a round?

In our census it returns 59 where the T73 returns 98, and 25% leaks. The 41.0° pavilion already clears the 38.1° guide minimum, so steeper angles are not the answer our data gives.

Emerald cut CZ or emerald cut diamond?

CZ has a little more light (59 against 55) and more fire (92 against 87); both leak 25%. Diamond is far lighter and harder.

What does a 6.5 mm wide emerald cut CZ weigh?

3.81 ct. In diamond, the same stone would be 2.31 ct.

Get the Emerald Cut files

6 formatsMillimetresWatertight

Emerald Cut 3D files

The Emerald Cut as exact geometry: 57 planar facets, real-world scale, ready for CAD, rendering, printing and casting.

STEPExact faceted solid for CAD
3DMRhino, closed mesh on its own layer
STLWatertight mesh for printing and casting
OBJMesh for modelling and rendering
FBXBlender, 3ds Max, Maya, Cinema 4D, Unity, Unreal
GLBWeb, AR and quick previews

€9.99 · Personal useBuy the 3D files

GemCad64 index

Emerald Cut cutting files

The Emerald Cut as a faceting design: 49 + 8 girdles = 57 facets, 64 index, 2-fold mirror-image symmetry, ready for the machine.

.ascGemCad design file, 64 index gear
.csvTier table: angles, indices and cutting order
DiagramPrintable faceting diagram

€9.99 · Personal useBuy the cutting files

Questions before you buy? Email us.

More gemstones and cuts

Cubic Zirconia: optical properties and the top ten cuts · The Emerald Cut: specifications, model and files

Emerald Cut Cubic Zirconia: more fire than a modern round, from a step cut