How Many Facets Do Radiant and Cushion Cut Diamonds Have — and Why It Matters

The Number That Actually Separates These Two Cuts

Radiant cut diamonds have 70 facets. Cushion cut diamonds, in their traditional brilliant form, have 58 facets — the same count as a classic round brilliant. That 12-facet difference sounds like a footnote, but it’s the main reason these two cuts behave so differently under light, and it’s why the question of which looks bigger doesn’t have a one-word answer.

The radiant cut was designed in 1977 by master cutter Henry Grossbard, whose specific goal was to combine the geometric outline of an emerald cut with the light-scattering intensity of a round brilliant. The 70-facet layout he arrived at — a dense arrangement of triangular and kite-shaped facets across the crown, pavilion, and girdle — is what gives the radiant its signature character: fragmented, high-intensity sparkle that reads almost like a round brilliant from across a room.

The cushion, by contrast, is one of the oldest diamond shapes in existence. Its roots trace back to the old mine cut of the 1700s, and the modern cushion brilliant retains that lineage in the form of larger, more open facets. Where the radiant breaks light into dozens of small flashes, the cushion produces broader, chunkier reflections — slower to change as the stone moves, but often more vivid in their color (what gemologists call fire).

So the facet count isn’t just a trivia stat. It’s the structural reason these two diamonds look and perform the way they do.

What Facets Actually Do to Light — and Why More Isn’t Always Better

A facet is a flat, polished surface cut at a precise angle. Every facet on a diamond serves one of three functions: it lets light enter the stone, it redirects that light internally through total internal reflection, or it returns light to the viewer’s eye as brilliance, fire, or scintillation. The arrangement of facets — their number, shape, and angle — determines how those three functions balance out.

With 70 facets, the radiant cut divides incoming light into more discrete pathways. The result is scintillation: rapid, small flashes of white and spectral light that shift constantly as the stone or the light source moves. This is sometimes called the “crushed ice” effect, and it’s why radiant cuts tend to look lively even under dim lighting conditions. The tightly organized facet layout produces dense light return that’s comparable to a round brilliant — which is exactly what Grossbard intended.

The cushion’s 58 facets are larger and more open. Each one intercepts a wider band of incoming light and returns it as a single, broader flash. This is why cushion cuts are better known for fire — those rainbow-colored bursts of spectral light — than for the rapid-fire white sparkle of the radiant. It’s a different kind of beauty, not a lesser one. Antique cushion cuts and chunky-style modern cushions lean even further into this quality, producing the kind of slow, dramatic color play that photographers love.

There’s a meaningful wrinkle here: the cushion category is not uniform. Modified cushion brilliant cuts can carry anywhere from 64 to 70 facets, which pushes their light performance closer to a radiant’s. A crushed-ice cushion — which fragments its facets into dozens of tiny surfaces — can approach radiant-level scintillation. So when comparing these two cuts, it’s worth asking which version of each you’re looking at, not just which shape.

Which One Actually Looks Bigger?

This is the question that drives most of the radiant-versus-cushion research, and the answer depends on geometry more than carat weight.

Radiant cuts are typically cut shallower than cushions. That shallower depth profile means more of the diamond’s mass sits above the girdle and spreads across the face-up surface area. A 1.50-carat radiant will often show a wider, longer table than a 1.50-carat cushion of identical proportions, because the cushion carries more weight in its rounded, deeper pavilion — weight that’s hidden below the setting.

In practical terms: an elongated radiant cut, particularly one with a length-to-width ratio between 1.20 and 1.35, tends to maximize finger coverage and create a strong visual impression of size. The cushion’s rounded corners and deeper body work against it slightly in the size-per-carat comparison. That said, a cushion set in a well-chosen halo setting can close much of that gap — the surrounding accent diamonds add visible diameter and make the center stone appear larger than it measures.

For buyers who prioritize the appearance of size without increasing their budget, the radiant cut consistently delivers more visual impact per carat. But “bigger-looking” isn’t the same as “better-looking.” A cushion’s soft, pillow-like silhouette reads as more romantic and vintage on the hand, and for some finger types — particularly shorter, wider fingers — the cushion’s proportions can actually be more flattering than an elongated radiant’s stretched geometry.

If you’re weighing both options for an engagement ring, Ouros Jewels carries radiant cut diamond engagement rings and cushion cut diamond engagement rings in lab-grown diamonds across a range of carat weights and settings — which makes side-by-side comparison easier without committing to a price point before you’ve decided on a shape.

Sparkle Pattern, Clarity, and Color: The Practical Differences

Facet count shapes more than just how a diamond sparkles. It also affects how forgiving each cut is with color and clarity grades — which matters a lot when you’re working with a real budget.

Clarity: The radiant’s 70 facets break up light so aggressively that inclusions become difficult to locate even under magnification. Eye-clean stones in the SI1–SI2 range are generally achievable without visible flaws. The cushion’s larger, more open facets are slightly less effective at masking inclusions — particularly in the traditional chunky-facet style — so VS2 or better is often the safer target for cushion cuts, especially in stones over 1.50 carats.

Color: Both cuts hide color reasonably well compared to step cuts like emerald or Asscher. A cushion graded I or J will often face up closer to G or H because its faceting pattern diffuses any warmth throughout the stone. Radiant cuts are similarly forgiving, and the same J-color guidance applies. Where radiants can be trickier is that their deeper faceting can concentrate color in certain viewing angles, so some cutters recommend staying at H or above for larger stones in white metal settings.

Sparkle pattern preference: This is subjective, but it’s probably the most important factor for most buyers. If you want a diamond that looks like it’s constantly moving — crackling with white light — the radiant’s 70-facet layout delivers that. If you prefer a diamond that produces dramatic color flashes and has a warmer, more vintage character, the cushion’s broader facets are better suited to that aesthetic. Neither is objectively superior; they’re just different instruments playing different parts.

For buyers exploring lab-grown options, the [cushion cut vs. radiant cut guide on the Ouros Jewels blog](https://www.ourosjewels.com/blogs/education/8-points-that-defines-cushion-cut-vs-radiant-cut) goes deeper on proportions, crown angles, and how the two cuts compare across all eight key structural dimensions.

Which Cut Should You Choose?

The facet count is a useful starting point, but the decision rarely ends there. Here’s a practical framework:

Choose a radiant cut if you want maximum white-light brilliance, prefer a geometric and modern outline, want the most face-up size per carat, or are drawn to the crushed-ice sparkle pattern. Radiant cuts also tend to sit at a slight price advantage over cushions of comparable quality, since cushion cutting typically produces more rough-stone waste.

Choose a cushion cut if you prefer a softer, more romantic silhouette, want strong fire and colorful light play, or are drawn to vintage and antique aesthetics. Cushions pair particularly well with halo settings, where the rounded corners flow naturally into surrounding accent stones. They’re also the better choice if you want a stone with old-world character — especially if you explore antique-style variants like the old mine cushion.

And if the size question is what’s keeping you up at night: an elongated radiant at a 1.25–1.35 length-to-width ratio will almost always look larger face-up than a square cushion of identical carat weight. But a well-proportioned elongated cushion — particularly one with a length-to-width ratio above 1.20 — closes that gap considerably, while still offering the rounded corners and warmer light play that cushion fans prefer.

Both cuts are durable. The radiant’s trimmed 45-degree corners reduce chipping risk compared to sharp-cornered shapes like the princess cut, and the cushion’s naturally rounded edges are equally protective. Either is a sound choice for daily wear in a well-made setting.

Ultimately, 70 facets versus 58 facets is the technical answer. The right answer is whichever stone you can’t stop looking at.