Live entertainment score with open score anatomy - so a toy percentage never pretends to be relationship advice.
Name letter hash + optional closeness bonuses, then mod 101. Not astrology, not a clinical assessment.
By Ahmet C. Toplutaş·Site owner & editor · Lifestyle tools
Last updated May 21, 2026 · Reviewed May 21, 2026 · Planning estimates only - not tax, medical, or investment advice
01
Online “love compatibility” tools often present a single percentage as if it were a diagnosis. This page refuses that frame. The live panel generates an entertainment percentage from letter codes in names plus optional age, height, and weight closeness bonuses. It is a deterministic parlor trick - useful as an icebreaker, useless as a substitute for knowing each other.
The decision framing is toy score ≠ relationship advice. Read the percentage for fun, then read the score anatomy and talk prompts for the part that can actually help: starting a better conversation.
If you came here hoping for a green light / red light, stop at the disclaimer and use the talk prompts instead. A high toy score is not permission to skip hard topics; a low toy score is not a reason to end a good relationship.
02
Most legacy tools hide the recipe. This panel opens it. The anatomy splits the toy into parts you can inspect:
Showing the parts is the point. When the name hash is thousands and the closeness bonuses are a few dozen, you can see that body metrics were never driving a serious verdict - they were decorating a name toy.
03
Intuition says: smaller age gap → higher compatibility number. Before the modulo step, closer ages do add a slightly larger bonus. After mod 101, that bonus can wrap the total into a completely different band. Two nearly identical pairs can land 40 points apart because wrapping is not a smooth fit curve.
That is not a bug we paper over - it is honesty. If the tool pretended closeness bonuses mapped cleanly onto %, it would teach a false model of relationships. The anatomy line “pre-mod total → final %” exists so you can watch the scramble happen.
Try the “Alex & Jordan” vs “Sam & Riley” presets, then the names-only preset. Watch how much of the raw total is name hash, how small the bonuses are, and how little the final % behaves like a “fit meter.”
04
Psychology and relationship research do not crown name numerology or height gaps as predictors of lasting partnership. Factors that show up again and again include shared values, respectful communication, ability to repair after conflict, emotional regulation, and alignment on major life goals (money, family, place, work). Attraction and shared interests matter, but they are weaker long-term predictors than how you treat each other when things go wrong.
The panel’s talk-prompt cards - values, conflict repair, money & decisions - are the redirect from toy math to those topics. One card is highlighted as “start here” based on which optional demographic gap is largest in your inputs (or values when metrics are blank). That highlight is a conversation nudge, not a clinical assessment.
For foundational reading, see the APA overview of healthy relationships and Gottman Institute research summaries linked in Sources. Those are starting points for literacy - not a substitute for a licensed clinician when you need care.
05
Example A · Demo pair, close ages. Preset: Alex & Jordan.
Open the anatomy. The name hash will dwarf the closeness bonuses. The final % is still just hash math wrapped by 101. Use the highlighted talk prompt as the real output of the page - not the percentage banner.
Example B · Wider age gap. Preset: Sam & Riley.
Age bonus drops because the gap is larger - but the final % may not fall in a tidy line, because modulo wraps. If you catch yourself saying “see, the calculator agrees we are mismatched,” you are treating toy noise as evidence. Flip to the money or values prompt instead.
Example C · Names only. Preset: Maya & Chris (no age/height/weight).
Closeness bonuses show as skipped / +0. The score is almost pure name hash. That is the cleanest view of what most “name compatibility” toys actually are - and why optional body fields were never the scientific core of this page.
Example D · Same people, tweaked spelling. Change “Alex” to “Alexander” and watch the name hash jump. The relationship did not change; the letter codes did. That single experiment is usually enough to retire the myth that the % measures the pair.
06
07
08
Stop here when you wanted a lighthearted icebreaker and a better conversation starter. Hand the job off - or step away from calculators entirely - when the stakes are real distress, safety, or clinical care.
09
No. The percentage is an entertainment toy built from letter codes in names plus optional age/height/weight closeness bonuses, then reduced with modulo 101. It does not measure values, attachment, communication, or commitment. Treat it as a conversation icebreaker, not a verdict.
So you can see what actually moved the number. Most of the raw total usually comes from name letter codes. Age, height, and weight only add small optional bonuses - and those bonuses are not scientific predictors. The final % is the combined total modulo 101, which can scramble the “closer = higher” intuition.
Not reliably. Closeness bonuses add a little before the modulo step, but modulo 101 wraps the total into 0–100, so two similar pairs can land far apart. That is intentional honesty in the anatomy panel: the toy is not a smooth “fit” meter.
Research and clinical practice point to shared values, communication and repair after conflict, emotional regulation, respect, and aligned life goals far more than names or body metrics. Use the talk-prompt cards to start those conversations instead of stopping at the toy score.
No. A low entertainment score is not evidence of incompatibility, and a high score is not a green light. If the relationship has ongoing distress, safety concerns, or stuck conflict patterns, talk with a licensed therapist or counselor rather than an online toy.
No. Inputs hydrate from the URL on load, but the address bar updates only when you use Share or Copy. That keeps live editing calm and share links intentional.
LIVE TOY SCORE
Toy ≠ advice ↓Pair presets
Person A
Person B
Updates live. Toy score ≠ relationship advice. Optional metrics only nudge a small bonus before modulo 101.
Entertainment compatibility %
91%
Sky-high toy score - still not relationship advice.
SCORE ANATOMY · TOY ≠ ADVICE
Modulo wraps the total into 0–100, so “closer demographics” do not reliably raise the displayed percentage. The anatomy exists so the toy cannot pretend to be a smooth fit meter.
TALK PROMPTS · USE THESE INSTEAD OF THE %
Values & priorities
What three things would make the next five years feel successful for each of you - and where do those lists overlap?
Conflict repair
START HEREAfter a hard argument, what does a good repair look like for you? What usually makes it harder?
Money & decisions
How do you each decide what is worth spending on - and how would you handle a surprise expense together?
Copy the link to save or share your results.