Astroyana research · the whole chart
Is there such a thing as a perfect kundli?
Most studies here measure one feature at a time: a dosha, yoga or planetary dignity. This study considers the chart as a whole. We scored 50,000 charts on every classical strength and weakness, then measured how many met the study’s "perfect" or "all-affliction" definitions. The sample is synthetic, uses no real user data and measures base rates per birth moment.
0.00% is a rounded sample percentage, not proof of impossibility. Even zero detections among 50,000 draws would give an approximate one-sided 95% upper bound of 0.006%, conditional on these sampling assumptions.
95.5%
have BOTH real strengths and real weaknesses
4.49%
are “flawless” — strengths but zero weaknesses
0%
are “all-affliction” — essentially nobody
8.98 : 2.89
average strengths to weaknesses, per chart
Almost every chart contains both
Almost every chart contains a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. 95.5% contain both. Only 4.49% meet the "flawless" definition, and 0% meet the "all-affliction" definition, at the displayed precision. In this sample, charts at either extreme are exceptionally rare.
- A blend of light and shadow95.5%
- Flawless (no weaknesses)4.5%
Your chart’s net balance is a bell curve
Subtracting each chart’s weaknesses from its strengths produces a bell-shaped distribution centred near +6. The average chart has about 8.98 strengths and 2.89 weaknesses. Most charts have a positive net score, while strongly negative scores are rare.
Share of charts at each net score. Positive means more classical strengths than weaknesses.
Strengths and weaknesses, counted
The two sides separately. Strengths are common and plural — most charts stack several exalted or own-sign planets and a handful of auspicious yogas. Weaknesses are real but bounded — they cluster around two or three per chart, and only 4.5% of charts escape every one.
Which strengths, which weaknesses
The famous "royal" yogas are not rare — Gajakesari, under the engine’s qualified BPHS rule, shows up in 14.5% of charts and one of the five Pancha Mahapurusha yogas in 34.6%. The dosha rates are shown below. Counts of these markers do not measure the severity of their effects in life.
See each of these put to numbers on its own in how special is your yoga and how common are the doshas.
What this means
The most useful conclusion is simple: almost every kundli contains both strengths and weaknesses. Neither an all-positive nor an all-negative chart is typical. A single dosha or yoga should therefore be read in the context of the whole chart rather than treated as a verdict.
Curious where your chart lands? See your own strengths and afflictions.
Methodology
Synthetic study — no real user data. Birth moments are sampled uniformly across the date range and clock; birthplaces are sampled across major Indian cities weighted by population. Percentages are the mathematical base rate per birth moment, not a population census. Reproducible from the committed script with the fixed seed. Each chart is scored on two opposing sets of selected natal markers (classical rules and modern conventions). GREEN (strengths): planets exalted, planets in own sign, and auspicious yogas (every yoga whose nature is not malefic). RED (weaknesses): natal doshas present and not cancelled (Mangal, both Kaal Sarp directions including Kala Amrita, Pitru, Grahan, Guru-Chandal, Kemadruma), planets debilitated, and planets combust (Moon 12°, Mars 17°, Mercury 14°, Jupiter 11°, Venus 10°, Saturn 15° from the Sun). Transit afflictions (Sade Sati etc.) are excluded — this is a purely natal balance. 'Good' and 'bad' here mean the engine's selected rule set, never a claim about anyone's life. Yogas in the engine's 'negative' family (Asubha, Daridra) and Kemadruma never count as strengths; Gajakesari uses the engine's default BPHS Ch.36 qualified rule; Manglik uses the matchmaking set (houses 1/4/7/8/12 from Lagna or Moon).
With N=50,000 the 95% Monte-Carlo half-width of a published percentage is ±0.44 points near 50% and ±0.19 points near 5%. That is the uncertainty of the base rate itself; because the seed is fixed, re-running the script on the same engine reproduces every figure exactly.
- Sample size
- 50,000 charts
- Birth date range
- 1950-01-01 to 2009-12-31
- Timezone
- IST (UTC+5:30)
- Birth hour
- uniform
- Locations
- population-weighted across 25 major Indian cities
- Ayanamsa
- lahiri
- Nodes
- mean
- House system
- whole_sign
- Engine version
- 0.14.0
- Engine commit
- 8c7e053d334a
- Swiss Ephemeris
- 2.10.03 (pyswisseph 2.10.3.2)
- Precision (95%)
- ±0.44 pp
- Generated on
- 2026-10-11
- Dataset revision
- 2
- Seed
- 20260603
FAQ
Is there such a thing as a perfect birth chart?
Under the study’s definition, across 50,000 computed charts, only 4.49% met the study’s "flawless" definition: at least one classical strength and no dosha, debilitated planet or combust planet. The average chart has about 8.98 strengths and 2.89 weaknesses.
How many charts are completely cursed or doomed?
Essentially zero. Only 0% had no auspicious yoga and no exalted or own-sign planet. By contrast, 95.5% had both strengths and weaknesses. This is a rounded sample percentage, not proof of impossibility.
What counts as a strength or a weakness here?
Strengths (green): planets exalted, planets in their own sign, and auspicious yogas (every detected yoga except the negative family, Asubha and Daridra, and Kemadruma). Weaknesses (red): natal doshas that are present and not cancelled (Mangal, Kaal Sarp, Pitru, Grahan, Guru-Chandal, Kemadruma), planets debilitated, and planets combust. These are the engine’s classical rules, applied to the natal chart only — transit phases like Sade Sati are excluded.
Is this based on real people?
No. It is a synthetic study: birth moments are sampled mathematically and computed with our astrology engine. No real user data is used or stored — only aggregate percentages. A figure is a base rate per birth moment, not a claim about anyone’s life.
Free to cite with attribution to Astroyana. Figures are the mathematical base rate per birth moment from a synthetic sample, computed with our Swiss-Ephemeris (Lahiri) engine — not a survey of real people, and not a claim about anyone’s life.