Choose a Synastry Report by Its Orb Policy

Choose the report that shows its rules, not the one with the biggest number

Usually, choose the synastry report that explains its orb policy and prints the orb beside each contact. The policy tells you what qualified for inclusion; the number beside an aspect shows how close that contact is to exact. A long list can offer useful breadth, but its total cannot tell you whether it includes major aspects, minor aspects, extra chart points, or wider thresholds. For a focused comparison, transparency comes first. Choose breadth when you want an exploratory inventory and the report labels that breadth clearly.

That recommendation rests on a simple distinction. A contact count is an output. A method explains how the output was made. If a report gives you only a total or a list of aspect names, you cannot tell whether another report found fewer contacts because it used tighter limits, considered fewer points, or simply presented its results differently. You need the rule before you can interpret the count.

AstroNet’s guide describes an orb as the distance from an exact aspect angle and notes that synastry compares two fixed natal charts. Once those positions are set, the inter-chart orb stays fixed. The same guide says astrologers use different limits according to planet, aspect, technique, and purpose. Astrology.ac’s page gives a concrete example of why scope matters: it describes that site’s natal-aspect calculator, not a synastry policy. It names five major angles, gives a separate maximum for each, and says the calculator ranks qualifying natal contacts by exactness. A synastry report needs to disclose its own inclusion rule and any ranking method; the natal example cannot establish either.

A report with more entries may be richer. It may also be answering a broader question. So start by asking what the report counted, not whether the number looks impressive.

If a page gives an orb table without naming whether it applies to natal charts, transits, or synastry, treat the scope as unresolved. Look for a report-specific method note or ask the provider which chart comparison the figures govern. Until that is clear, use the table only as an example of disclosed rules, not as evidence for how the synastry list was built.

Sources: Astrological Orbs Explained: Natal Charts, Transits and Synastry; Astrology Aspects Explained

What does an orb policy tell you that a contact count cannot?

An orb policy states how far a pair of chart points may sit from an exact aspect angle and still be counted. The orb attached to one contact is the measured distance from that exact angle. Those figures work together, but answer different questions: the maximum is the admission rule; the contact-level orb is the result for that pair.

Consider a purely geometric example. If two points are 93 degrees apart, they sit 3 degrees from an exact 90-degree square. If a report’s square limit is 5 degrees, that contact falls inside the stated boundary. If the limit is 2 degrees, it falls outside. The geometry has not changed. The report’s inclusion choice has.

A clear policy identifies the aspects it checks and the limits it applies. Some astrologers use one limit across several aspects; others vary the allowance by aspect or by the planets involved. The plan can also state whether it includes only major aspects or adds minor ones, and whether it compares planets alone or includes points such as the Ascendant or lunar nodes. These choices change which contacts can appear. They also change the meaning of a total.

AstroNet states that there is no universal orb rule and describes different approaches. Astrology.ac’s table makes its natal calculator’s policy explicit: conjunctions and oppositions receive an 8-degree maximum, squares and trines 7 degrees, and sextiles 5 degrees. A reader can reproduce those thresholds for that natal calculator. They are not evidence of the limits used in synastry; for synastry, Graves’s narrower limits are one documented astrologer’s method, not a universal standard.

The distinction matters when you compare two reports. One may list a Venus-Mars square at 4 degrees while another omits it. You cannot call either report mistaken from the list alone. First ask whether both included the same aspect type and whether their limits match. Then compare the contact-level orb with the applicable limit.

A report that names the rule and prints each orb gives you a way to follow its reasoning. It does not tell you what the aspect means yet. That is the next layer.

Sources: Astrological Orbs Explained: Natal Charts, Transits and Synastry; Astrology Aspects Explained

Why can a longer list feel more complete and still be less useful?

Synastry gives an astrologer many possible cross-chart pairings to consider. The list grows when a method adds more points, adds minor aspects, or allows wider orbs. A higher total may therefore reflect a broader net rather than a more complete reading. Completeness only has meaning once you know what the report set out to include.

Philip Graves’s published synastry method makes the case for restraint. He recommends narrower limits for synastry than for natal aspects and argues that two charts produce enough potential factors to make selection important. That is one astrologer’s method, not a consensus rule. Its value here is that it states the tradeoff plainly: filtering can keep a reader’s attention on a smaller pattern instead of spreading it across every possible contact.

The counterpoint is real. A broad inventory can help an experienced reader explore less familiar aspects or notice a secondary connection that a short report leaves out. Prokerala’s sample report shows what that can look like: a long table labels planet pairs, aspect names, individual orb values, and aspect types. It includes major and minor contacts. The visible data lets a reader inspect the breadth rather than face an unexplained total.

The problem is not length by itself. It is an unranked list that makes a close conjunction, a wider opposition, and a minor aspect look equally central simply because each occupies one row. The list may be comprehensive as an inventory and still provide little help with priority. A useful report tells you which contacts meet its basic threshold and how it expects you to weigh them.

Imagine you are choosing between two samples. One has 18 contacts and prints a single uniform limit. The other has 31 contacts, including minor aspects and additional points, with a separate orb next to each. The second is more expansive, but the extra entries do not establish greater interpretive value. If your purpose is a first reading of known placements, the smaller, clearer list may be easier to use. If you are comfortable with aspect language and want a research worksheet, the broader list may suit you better.

The right count depends on the job. Ask whether the report is meant to introduce a few defining contacts or help you investigate a wide field of chart links. Then judge its breadth against that promise.

Sources: Introduction to Relationship Astrology 2: Synastry (Subjective Compatibility Factors); Synastry Report; Astrological Orbs Explained: Natal Charts, Transits and Synastry

What should an orb policy disclose to be useful?

Look for five pieces of information: the chart points included, the aspect angles checked, the maximum orb for each relevant aspect, the orb attached to each contact, and the chart inputs used to establish the positions. Those details let you tell what the list means and whether two samples can be compared fairly.

Start with scope. Does the report include the Sun through Pluto, or only a selected set of planets? Does it include angles, nodes, asteroids, or other points? Does it check the five common major aspects alone, or also minor aspects such as quintiles and sesquiquadrates? The sample from Prokerala includes a broad collection of contacts and labels each row. The Astro-Charts sample lists its planetary positions and a ranked set of aspects, with orb values beside them. These samples show different presentation choices, not a shared standard.

Next, inspect the thresholds. A statement such as ‘we use a six-degree orb’ is only a start. Does six degrees apply to every aspect? Are conjunctions treated differently from sextiles? Are there exceptions for luminaries or other points? A concise table can answer these questions at a glance. Astrology.ac offers a clear example of disclosure: it names each major angle and its maximum. Readers can understand the method without needing to adopt it.

Then check the result line by line. Each contact should identify both chart factors, the aspect, and its orb. If the report ranks contacts, it should say what ranking means. Astrology.ac says its natal calculator ranks qualifying contacts by exactness; that describes the calculator on the cited page, not a synastry service. The Astro-Charts synastry sample orders contacts and gives their orb figures, making it a relevant example of presentation. Together, these examples help distinguish selection from ordering: a contact may qualify under a report’s rule, then appear higher or lower according to its stated priority.

Finally, find out where the positions came from. Some services calculate charts from birth date, time, and place. Others compare placements a reader supplies. Those are different inputs. The report should tell you which it uses, especially if angles or houses are part of the reading, because those depend on birth-time information. A sign-only comparison can discuss placements by sign, but it cannot establish exact degree-based aspects or contact-level orbs.

You do not need a long technical appendix. You need enough disclosure to retrace the path from input, to contact, to interpretation. If a sample hides any of those steps, its prose may sound polished, but you have less basis for judging whether the reading follows a consistent method.

Sources: Astrology Aspects Explained; Synastry Report; Synastry Sample Report

Does a tighter orb automatically make a contact more important?

No. A tighter orb can be a useful cue for emphasis within a stated method, but it does not make an aspect automatically more harmonious, more difficult, or more important than every wider contact. Exactness belongs to the geometry. Interpretation also depends on the planets, the angle, the signs, and the larger pattern being read.

Astrology.ac’s natal-aspect guide makes a useful interpretive distinction within its own scope: exactness describes how closely a contact meets its angle, while meaning comes from interpreting the planet pair and angle together. Its descriptions show why the distinction matters. A conjunction brings two functions into one channel, which can cooperate or compete. A square creates pressure, but can also call for movement and skill. A trine allows flow, though ease alone does not make it valuable. This is an interpretive principle illustrated on a natal page, not a synastry policy; applied to synastry, the orb still describes closeness without erasing the character of the aspect.

The Astro-Charts sample says a tighter aspect generally indicates a stronger influence and orders its entries by orb. That is a coherent emphasis choice. Readers who use exactness as a leading priority can reasonably want a report to surface close contacts first. But a ranking cue is not a verdict on the full relationship, and a close contact still needs interpretation.

Sue Tompkins’s publisher excerpt on aspects offers a related interpretive principle: an aspect reading combines planetary symbols, while a cookbook entry that isolates one factor from the whole chart can miss the synthesis. Applied to synastry, a close contact is a starting point for attention, not an explanation in itself. A report should connect the roles of both planets to the aspect they make, then show how that contact sits beside other themes.

Imagine a sample places a close Venus-Saturn contact above a wider Moon-Mercury contact. The ranking tells you which is more exact under that report’s method. It does not, by itself, tell you which theme will matter more to the question you brought to the reading. If you want to understand affection and commitment, Venus-Saturn may deserve careful attention. If you want to understand how you talk through feelings, Moon-Mercury may be the more useful place to linger. That is an interpretive choice, not a new calculation.

The strongest case for tight-orb priority is that a clear ranking can keep a long report readable. The needed exception is equally clear: exactness is one priority cue among several. Choose a report that says how it uses closeness, rather than one that silently turns the smallest number into the whole story.

Sources: Astrological Orbs Explained: Natal Charts, Transits and Synastry; Astrology Aspects Explained; Synastry Sample Report; Aspects in Astrology

How should you compare two reports on equal terms?

Compare two reports only after matching their inputs and scope. If one uses different birth data, includes more points, or checks additional aspects, the totals do not measure the same thing. The fair comparison asks what each report says its method includes, then compares the result within those boundaries.

First, check the positions. Are both reports based on the same supplied placements or on the same calculated birth charts? Are degrees available? If one sample includes birth time and place while the other uses sign placements only, they do not offer equivalent aspect inventories. Do not treat their contact counts as a contest. Compare what each promises to do with the information it receives.

Second, match the list rules as far as the samples allow. Note which planets and points appear, which major or minor angles are checked, and each stated orb limit. If one report prints only major aspects while another adds minor aspects, separate the common set from the extras. If the limits differ, a contact near one boundary may appear in one list and not the other. That difference follows from policy; it does not by itself show an error.

Third, inspect the same kind of contact in each sample. Does the report identify the planet pair, angle, and orb? Does it explain why the contact is included? Does its interpretation describe both planetary roles, or give a generic label? Prokerala’s sample table makes the first three details visible for many entries. Astro-Charts also prints positions and contact-level orbs. Their samples help readers examine presentation. They do not prove how consistently either service handles every chart.

Graves’s method gives a useful manual-comparison principle: identify the factors, consider signs and degrees, work through pairwise separations, and apply explicit aspect criteria. The buyer-facing rule that follows is simple: hold the factors and inputs steady before comparing totals. That rule is editorial synthesis, not a claim that Graves tested commercial reports.

If the samples do not expose enough information to align the comparison, say so plainly in your own decision. You can still compare readability, scope statements, and the level of explanation. You cannot conclude that one report found more meaningful contacts merely because its sample has more rows.

Sources: Introduction to Relationship Astrology 2: Synastry (Subjective Compatibility Factors); Synastry Report; Synastry Sample Report

What should you inspect in the sample before trusting its list?

Read a sample as a map of the provider’s choices, not as proof that the finished report will give a complete account of your relationship. A sample can show the shape of the service: what inputs it asks for, which factors it lists, how it reports orbs, and how it turns selected contacts into prose. It cannot show how the method will interpret placements it does not display.

Begin at the front. Does the sample identify whether chart data is calculated from birth details or supplied by the reader? Does it list the relevant positions and any limits? The Astro-Charts sample names chart positions and includes degrees, and Prokerala’s sample describes charts drawn from birth details. That matters when comparing either with a placement-based offer. Similar titles such as ‘synastry report’ do not guarantee similar inputs.

Move to the aspect table. Check that rows carry names, angles, and orb values. See whether the list includes minor contacts or nonplanetary points. Look for a note about how the report sets its limits or ranks results. A report that prints many rows but no policy gives you data without the rule that selected it. A report with fewer entries can still be more legible if it explains why they qualify.

Then read a few interpretations. Do they explain both planetary functions and the aspect between them? Do they distinguish a square from a trine instead of giving both the same generic relationship language? Does the sample treat a contact as one layer of the reading, or make a sweeping claim from one row? The publisher excerpt for Tompkins supports the value of synthesis: planetary symbols and aspects need to be read together. That principle gives you a practical test for prose quality, though the excerpt does not evaluate a vendor.

The Astrology API sample illustrates why this close reading matters. Its entries use categories such as harmony, challenging, and tension alongside orb figures. Those labels belong to that provider’s presentation. They are not universal categories, and the sample’s strong relationship language should not be treated as a conclusion about a reader’s actual bond. A sample is useful for seeing how a product writes, not for transferring its example interpretations onto your chart.

A practical review can take a few minutes. Find the input statement, the scope, the threshold, the individual orb, and one full interpretation. If one is missing, decide whether that gap matters for your purpose. If you want an exploratory list, broad coverage may be fine. If you plan to study the contacts closely, traceability should weigh more.

Sources: Synastry Report; Synastry Sample Report; Compatibility Synastry Report Sample; Aspects in Astrology

Choose a rule you can read, then compare your placements

Choose the report that lets you understand why each contact appears. For most readers comparing known placements, that means a visible orb policy, the orb beside each listed aspect, a clear account of included planets and points, and an honest description of the inputs. A larger list is worth choosing when breadth is your aim and you can see how that breadth was built.

The strongest exception is the experienced reader who wants a wide worksheet. That reader may value minor aspects, additional points, and a generous inventory, provided the report labels those layers and does not present every row as equally central. A narrower method may be too selective for that task. The key is to choose breadth knowingly, not to assume that quantity proves depth.

If you compare samples, write down four things: chart inputs, points included, aspects checked, and orb limits. Then inspect a few individual contacts and the prose attached to them. If those details differ, compare the policies rather than the totals. A report’s rules are part of its reading, because they shape which connections it asks you to notice.

With signs but no degrees, you can still compare sign placements. You cannot verify exact angles or contact-level orb values from signs alone. The Synastry Comparison Report on this publication uses supplied placements and optional degrees; it does not calculate natal charts from birth details. If you already know the placements you want to explore, you can compare them at [Compare our placements](/compatibility-test).

So, should you choose the report that explains its orb policy? Usually, yes. Not because one threshold is right for everyone, and not because a short list is always better. Choose the method you can read. Then let the contacts support a thoughtful interpretation of how your charts fit together.

Sources: Astrological Orbs Explained: Natal Charts, Transits and Synastry; Astrology Aspects Explained

A little more clarity