Radiant Cut Cubic Zirconia: a large face for its weight, with little light behind it
Brilliance 33 · Fire 91 · Scintillation 74 · in our census, where the T73 scores 98 · 87 · 80 in cubic zirconia
Shallow and broad, the radiant in CZ shows a large face for its weight and throws more colour than a diamond radiant. Nearly half its light leaks through the back.
Rendered in our 3D Gemstone Simulator from the Radiant Cut model, 1.00 ct, studio light.
Radiant Cut Cubic Zirconia
Our radiant puts a brilliant plan of 74 facets under a step-cut outline with cropped corners, 1.284 to 1 and only 53.8% deep. For light it is one of the weakest pairings we measure in CZ: only DG-Bowtie and DG-Elongated Hexagon return less.
Its face-up size and its fire are real. So is the reason to read the fire with care: the score describes the light that comes back, and here little does.
Radiant cut cubic zirconia: is it a good pairing? Pros and cons
Compared with the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia and with the Radiant 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 Radiant 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 3, behind on 5.
Global68, the comparison 93, difference −25
Brilliance33, the comparison 98, difference −65
Fire91, the comparison 87, difference +4
Scintillation74, the comparison 80, difference −6
Spread105, the comparison 100, difference +5
Symmetry99, the comparison 100, difference −1
Shape-norm39, the comparison 106, difference −67
Tilt100, the comparison 87, difference +13
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.
Face-up size 118 against 100 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia (T73 = 100): 18% more face-up area for the same weight
Measured from its outline, a radiant of a given weight covers 118 against the T73's 100, third among the cuts in our CZ census behind the marquise and the rectangle. At 53.8% deep it carries less stone under its face than the round, at 61.7%.
Radiant Cut · 5.85 x 3.19 mm at 1.00 ct · Face-up size 118
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.
Fire 91 against 77 for the Radiant Cut in diamond: 14 points higher
In diamond this radiant scores 77; in CZ it reaches 91, above the T73 in CZ as well. With Brilliance at 33, that colour rides on a small amount of light.
Radiant Cut in cubic zirconia · Fire 91
Radiant Cut in diamond · Fire 77
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.
Brilliance 33 against 98 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 65 points lower
The census returns 33 against 98. A build this shallow lets much of the light run straight through the pavilion instead of turning back up. The diamond radiant fares no better, at 32.
Radiant Cut in cubic zirconia · Brilliance 33
T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia · 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.
Leakage 47 against 1 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 46 points higher
47% of the light leaves through the back in our census, the second highest share of any cut we measure in CZ, after DG-Elongated Hexagon. The T73 loses 1%.
Radiant Cut in cubic zirconia · Leakage 47
0° · 50% leak
10° · 46% leak
20° · 47% leak
30° · 49% leak
T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia · Leakage 1
0° · 0% leak
10° · 1% leak
20° · 9% leak
30° · 21% leak
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.
Scintillation 74 against 80 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 6 points lower
Our scintillation score is read from the census's own model of the radiant, whose facet count can differ from our 74-facet cutting design, and it trails the T73 by a few points. It is the mildest of its cons.
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.
The radiant in CZ is a weak pairing for light, and we say so plainly: Brilliance 33, with 47% leaking. It suits a design or a render where a broad face for the weight is the point.
Not for light: it returns 33 against 98 for the T73 and leaks 47%. It does face up large for its weight, 118 against 100.
Radiant or radiant square in CZ?
The square returns more than twice the light (74 against 33) and leaks 13%. This longer radiant has more fire, 91 against 81, and faces up larger, 118 against 91.
Does a radiant CZ have more fire than a diamond radiant?
Yes, 91 against 77. Neither returns much light: 33 in CZ, 32 in diamond.
How heavy is a 6.5 mm wide radiant CZ?
2.57 ct; the same radiant in diamond is 1.56 ct.
Get the Radiant Cut files
6 formatsMillimetresWatertight
Radiant Cut 3D files
The Radiant Cut as exact geometry: 74 planar facets, real-world scale, ready for CAD,
rendering, printing and casting.
