Rectangle Cut Cubic Zirconia: as much face for its weight as any cut we measure
Brilliance 51 · Fire 87 · Scintillation 63 · in our census, where the T73 scores 98 · 87 · 80 in cubic zirconia
With straight sides and square corners, the rectangle shows as much face for its weight as any cut we measure. In CZ it out-fires a diamond rectangle, and returns about half the T73's light.
Rendered in our 3D Gemstone Simulator from the Rectangle Cut model, 1.00 ct, studio light.
Rectangle Cut Cubic Zirconia
Our rectangle is a step cut with wide steps and no cropped corners: 45 facets, 1.506 to 1, 62.0% deep, over a 33.48° pavilion. Its pavilion facets repeat evenly, a full 100 for symmetry.
Face-up size is where it leads. Light is where it loses: 39% leaks through the back, and the pavilion sits below the 38.1° guide minimum we give for round designs. We have not measured a steeper rectangle.
Does a rectangle cut suit cubic zirconia? Pros and cons
Compared with the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia and with the Rectangle 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 Rectangle 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: level on 3, behind on 5.
Global69, the comparison 93, difference −24
Brilliance51, the comparison 98, difference −47
Fire87, the comparison 87, difference 0
Scintillation63, the comparison 80, difference −17
Spread100, the comparison 100, difference 0
Symmetry100, the comparison 100, difference 0
Shape-norm67, the comparison 106, difference −39
Tilt75, the comparison 87, difference −12
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 121 against 100 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia (T73 = 100): 21% more face-up area for the same weight
At 62.0% deep the rectangle is about as deep as the T73, 61.7%, so its lead comes from its long, square-cornered outline. Face-up size 121 ties the marquise for the top of our census.
Rectangle Cut · 6.47 x 4.30 mm at 1.00 ct · Face-up size 121
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 87 against 77 for the Rectangle Cut in diamond: 10 points higher
In diamond the rectangle scores 77. Cut in CZ, it reaches 87, level with the T73 there.
Rectangle Cut in cubic zirconia · Fire 87
Rectangle 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.
3.46 ct at 6.5 mm, against 2.10 ct for the same cut in diamond (+65%)
A rectangle 6.5 mm wide is 1.506 times as long. In CZ that weighs 3.46 ct, in diamond 2.10 ct, and CZ's density, about 5.8 against 3.52, accounts for the gap.
A Rectangle Cut 6.5 mm across, weighed from the model's measured volume and each stone's specific gravity.
Brilliance 51 against 98 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 47 points lower
Wide steps over a 33.48° pavilion let a large share of the light out of the back. The diamond rectangle returns 50, so the gap is the cut's, not the stone's.
Rectangle Cut in cubic zirconia · Brilliance 51
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 39 against 1 for the T73 Round Brilliant in cubic zirconia: 38 points higher
39% in our census, against 1% for the T73 in CZ; the diamond rectangle loses 32%. Only three cuts we measure in CZ leak more.
Rectangle Cut in cubic zirconia · Leakage 39
0° · 34% leak
10° · 42% leak
20° · 46% leak
30° · 55% 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 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.
Choose the rectangle in CZ for bars, side stones and minimalist settings, where a large, clean face for the weight matters more than light.
If you like the outline but want more light and less leakage, the Emerald Cut Cubic Zirconia does better on both, at the cost of a smaller face for the weight, 105. For light above all, a round such as DG-Vitruvio Cubic Zirconia.
Rectangle Cut Cubic Zirconia: questions
Does a rectangle cut CZ look big for its carat weight?
Yes: Face-up size 121 against 100 for the T73, level with the marquise at the top of our measurements.
Is a rectangle cut CZ bright?
Not by a round's standard. It returns 51 to the T73's 98, and 39% of the light leaks.
Rectangle or emerald cut in CZ?
The emerald cut wins on light, 59 to 51, and loses less through the back, 25% to 39%. The rectangle faces up larger, 121 against 105.
What does a 6.5 mm wide rectangle CZ weigh?
3.46 ct here and 2.10 ct in diamond.
Get the Rectangle Cut files
6 formatsMillimetresWatertight
Rectangle Cut 3D files
The Rectangle Cut as exact geometry: 45 planar facets, real-world scale, ready for CAD,
rendering, printing and casting.
