Oval Cut Cubic Zirconia: Pros, Cons & Fire

Our oval is the brilliant plan stretched along one axis, at 1.331 to 1 with a 40.99° pavilion and 64.0% depth. In CZ its fire is second only to one cut we measure, and its sparkle beats the T73's.

Its light does not. Ovals are prone to a darker band across the middle, the bow-tie, where the pavilion is shallowest. Our census does not score it; it measures the whole stone, and finds Brilliance 63 against 98.

Is an oval a good cut for cubic zirconia? Pros and cons

Cons

Heavy for its width 2.35 vs 1.42 ct
Much less light than the T73 in CZ 63 vs 98
Nearly a fifth of the light leaks 19 vs 1
Less steady than the diamond oval 77 vs 92

Compared with the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia and with the Oval Cut in diamond. A difference counts from 3 points (Brilliance, Fire, Tilt, Leakage), 5 (Scintillation, Symmetry), 2 (Spread) 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 Oval 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 2, behind on 6.

Global80, the comparison 93, difference −13
Brilliance63, the comparison 98, difference −35
Fire96, the comparison 87, difference +9
Scintillation87, the comparison 80, difference +7
Spread99, the comparison 100, difference −1
Symmetry98, the comparison 100, difference −2
Shape-norm74, the comparison 106, difference −32
Tilt77, the comparison 87, difference −10

Face-up light census, a different measure from the Cut Grading Tool; Spread and Shape-norm above 100 sit on the ring.

Open it in the Cut Performance Wheel

What the oval gives cubic zirconia

More fire than the T73 in CZ

Fire 96 against 87 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 9 points higher

Both stones are CZ, so this colour is the oval's own. Of everything we measure in CZ, only one cut scores higher for fire.

Oval cut in cubic zirconia face-up under a single bright light: a render from our simulator, its coloured flashes are the fire (score 96) — 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

More sparkle than the T73

Scintillation 87 against 80 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 7 points higher

The stretched plan divides the light into more flashes than the T73's 73 facets. The crown diagram shows the elongated pattern.

Oval Cut · 93 facets · Scintillation 87

T73 Round Brilliant · 73 facets · Scintillation 80

Scintillation follows the number of facets: more facets, more and smaller flashes as the stone moves. Count the facets in each crown. Drawn from each cut's own model.

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

The catch with an oval CZ

Heavy for its width

2.35 ct at 6.5 mm, against 1.42 ct for the same cut in diamond (+65%)

Elongated stones carry their weight along the length: 6.5 mm wide, this oval is 2.35 ct in CZ against 1.42 ct in diamond.

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

What helps: Compare ovals by length and width, not carats.

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

Much less light than the T73 in CZ

Brilliance 63 against 98 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 35 points lower

Against a T73 that returns almost everything in CZ, the oval's shortfall is one of the widest on these pages. In diamond the same oval does worse still, 47.

Oval 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 63) — 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 elongated cut we measure does much better in CZ: the Marquise Cut Cubic Zirconia returns 66. For light, a round: DG-Rafaello Cubic Zirconia (100).

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

Nearly a fifth of the light leaks

Leakage 19 against 1 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 18 points higher

19% leaves through the pavilion in our census, against 1% for the T73. The 40.99° pavilion is above CZ's 38.1° guide minimum, so the leak is not a too-shallow main angle.