How tall is Emma Watson

Emma Watson's Height

5ft 4 ¾ (164.5 cm)

English actress, best known for playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter series of films. She has also appeared in Beauty and the Beast, Noah and The Perks of Being a Wallflower. She once mentioned she was "about 5ft 5" and also claimed to be 5ft 6.

How tall is Emma Watson
Daniel Radcliffe, Emma (in heels which give 4.25 inches), Rupert Grint.
Photo by PRPhotos.com

You May Be Interested

Height of Kristen Stewart
Kristen Stewart
5ft 3 ½ (161 cm)
Height of Tom Felton
Tom Felton
5ft 8 ½ (174 cm)
Height of Jennifer Lawrence
Jennifer Lawrence
5ft 7 ½ (171 cm)
Height of Emma Roberts
Emma Roberts
5ft 1 ½ (156 cm)

Add a Comment1958 comments

Average Guess (117 Votes)
5ft 4.62in (164.1cm)
Iman Ahmad said on 5/Sep/19
I Guess She Is 164,5 cm Barefoot , She Is 164,5 cm Barefoot , A Lovely Woman , She was born in France , But She Is British Actress ,
Estirpe Divina said on 6/Aug/19
164 cm
kate123 said on 29/Jul/19
1.68
Yang (5 footer 8, 172-173) said on 11/Jul/19
This listing makes sense for Ems Watson cause her height is almost similar to her Potter cast mates Daniel Radcliffe who's 5 footer 4(she's less than half inch taller than him at least), and definitely shorter than Bonnie Wright with triple 5s... I will go her height with 164 range at least....
Emm Bee said on 10/Jul/19
Rob, have you ever had a chance to measure a celebrity and then found out that you were completely off about your estimate? And if so, who was it and how far off were you? Thank you.
Editor Rob
No, I've never got the opportunity.
Salma said on 22/Jun/19
Hi rob,
Vogue magazine did an interview with her and wrote
“She stands tall at 5’4”

Click Here
someonetorunwith said on 10/May/19
She looked considerably shorter than Celine Dion recently. I still think she's nearer to 5 ft 4 than 5 ft 5
Sharanya said on 3/May/19
I own a “Order of The Phoenix” dvd and in that section mentioned some info of the 3 main actors. It has Emma listed at 163cm. Rob, would you list her this low? It was back in 2007 so she might have grown a bit more by now.
Editor Rob
I wouldn't have thought only 5ft 4, or went that low for her.
Mimi said on 16/Apr/19
Ooh I forgot to greet Emma on her actual birthday so I'm greeting her with a belated Happy birthday! Here's a special cake for you🎂🎂. I can't believe she's now 29. When I first saw her on Harry Potter when I was a kid she was only probably 12, oh how time flies fast😪
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 15/Apr/19
🎈🎂🎁 Happy Birthday Emma! 🎁🎂🎈

Today, Emma Watson turns the lovely age of 29, so Many Happy Returns to this gorgeous and confident young lady who many of us have had the pleasure of watching grow up ever since she appeared in the first Harry Potter movie as a little girl.

I can't see Emma at LESS than 5ft4.75 at her shortest time of day. Once upon a time, I believed she was 5ft6!
Michael 5'10", 178 cm said on 9/Jan/19
Looks 5'5" all the time in movies. Emma Watson is 5'4.75"-5'5".
Oliver said on 3/Dec/18
This listing is fair but she struggles to look taller than 5ft 4½(164cm) most of the time.
Oliver said on 1/Oct/18
Rob,do you think she would edge Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus?
And would you be surprised if she falls to somewhere within 5ft 4-4.5 on the Stadiometer?
Thank you.
Editor Rob
I think I'd be surprised if she really was under 5ft 4.5
MAD SAM said on 25/May/18
I always felt Emma was a strong 5’4” but imma gonna give an extra 1/4 inch to her, 163-164 cm seems legit for Emma
gian said on 14/May/18
Rob according to the data matt measures 185 but we know that we can have accommodated even if it is a centimeter or maybe not, but it is almost impossible that it has been diminished.Matt Janney wins by a head to emma. one head measures 23 cm, emma is 162 or 161
QM6'1QM said on 4/May/18
A little bit taller than average woman's height.
My opinion: 5'4.5"/ 164 cm.
Nana said on 16/Apr/18
She’s 5’4.5 because Dan Rad is 5’5 and he said he is half an inch taller than emma so here you go :)
Oliver said on 5/Apr/18
Needs a downgrade to 5ft 4.5,I think.
That's the most I'd give her.
At times,she even looks 5'4.
Sandy Cowell said on 16/Mar/18
I've read in a magazine that Emma's as tall as 5ft6, and I fell for it!

Today, I can swallow 5ft5 for her! I feel 5ft6 was waved under our noses because Em's been - understandably - given a lot of modelling work!
Allie said on 14/Mar/18
@Luke - Have you heard her sing "Belle (Reprise)" or "Something There"? Even if it wasn't autotune, there was pitch correcting or something involved to enhance her voice. I find Emma pretty and a decent actress but a great singer she is not.

Anyways 5'4-5.
Nik said on 13/Mar/18
This is probably a fair listing for Emma but I wouldn't rule out 5'5"!
Sharanya said on 10/Mar/18
I think she’s 5’5”. Just nice for her.
Bobby said on 12/Feb/18
If she's just a shade under 5'5, then wouldn't she be 5'9 with the heels on? So why is Rupert Grint listed at 5'7.75? Wouldn't Emma Watson have to be considerably under 5'5 for this to make sense? She and Rupert are the same height in the photo above, and that's with her heels bringing her to 5'9. Unless Rupert just happens to have a camera advantage.
Luke said on 9/Feb/18
There wasn't any autotune. Watch La La Land if you want to see some autotune. Watson can sing
Allie said on 30/Jan/18
Just rewatched Beauty and the Beast. Nice movie if it wasn't for the autotune. She looked average. Not that tsll but not short either. 5'4-5'5.
Hannah said on 30/Jan/18
I think she’s 5’4, and I’m reaaaally being generous towards her. But even though she isn’t the tallest girl, she’s got the looks!!
Muzzy said on 4/Jan/18
Rob how do you explain the picture of her in heels! next to 5”6 Josh Gad at the 2017 MTV Movie Awards , I think she needs a downgrade
Jamison said on 3/Jan/18
Can we get some better comparisons between her and Daniel? She’s taller than him for sure!
Crumpet said on 21/Dec/17
Emma outgrew Daniel.
vam said on 15/Nov/17
Claire, she is 164 sure, you lie or confused sometimes happens.Illusion to be taller when have the same height o the other person is a bit taller...
Claire said on 12/Nov/17
I'm 5'4 and I met her once, we were both in flats and she was shorter than me.
Warren said on 4/Nov/17
She was surely shorter than Daniel in the first series of Harry Potter but then grew up and taller than him in the last series of the film! I'd give 5'5" on her
Crypto139 said on 18/Sep/17
Hey Rob I have tw friends. One says Daniel is shorter than Emma and another says they are the same height. The one th!t says they are the same height is usually right about everything or atleast thinks he is. So who is right?
Editor Rob: I feel you need to measure Daniel and Emma to really tell if Emma is a smidge taller, I tend to think she would edge Daniel out, but by no means would I rule out exactly the same.
Corey said on 16/Sep/17
Taller than you think
Ab8z4st said on 29/Aug/17
Well,i'm 5'3 but i don't look that short next to my 6'1 friend like she does

Sorry but it's a fact that she is about 5'5. And she looks like it. Stop trying to put down heights
elena said on 28/Aug/17
Ab8z4st said on 27/Aug/17
She is 5'5 so how is she short next to people? She is of average height

Well,i'm 5'3 but i don't look that short next to my 6'1 friend like she does
Ab8z4st said on 27/Aug/17
She is 5'5 so how is she short next to people? She is of average height
Anonymous said on 26/Aug/17
I'm 5'4 and I met her at Brown. We were both in flats and we were the same height.
Bennett said on 25/Aug/17
As small as 5foot3 and a half
elena said on 23/Aug/17
I think she's 5'4 too.Looks short next to people
oliver said on 28/Jul/17
Rob,is 5ft 4 flat possible? She looks 6 inches(at least 5.5) shorter than Karen Gillan at The Circle Movie Premier.Also at the Beauty and the Beast Premier, she looks at least 3" shorter than Celine Dion who's only 5'7.
Thanks if you reply.
Editor Rob: At times it seems she's not much over five for
even said on 7/Jul/17
164 cm
ana said on 7/Jul/17
this is very accurate, seen her, same height as I am, 164.
Des said on 2/Jul/17
I recently met her, she's a tad shorter then me and I'm 5'5. So solid 5'4 maybe 5'4.5. But yes thin, healthy thin. Petite frame.
fianlfantasy said on 17/Jun/17
She has very long and toned legs and a slender body. Lucky her
Ab8z4st said on 17/Jun/17
The hell is wrong with some users and Rob? Her legs are long. Period. Now look at Kristen Stewart for some shirt legs
vic said on 14/Jun/17
I didn't think she looked the height listed here in beauty and the beast. She looked really petite, though probably the male leads were rather tall. She has a nice slim body, but looked more 5'3.5. Just my opinion.
Hiro said on 3/Jun/17
Emma is 5'4 use daniel as a basis since they grew up together and you can see how they look behind the scenes and stuff. Shes the same hieght as him shes 5'4 or 5'5 or anywhere in between 5 4.50 inches 5 4.75 inches
Hiro said on 3/Jun/17
Beauty and the Beast was amazing. Also the Bling Ring is underrated as hell she was great. As to legs. Emma has gorgeous legs.
Peter G said on 16/May/17
OMG! Emma can look right over the top of Daniels head now!! Talk about being humbled by the younger girl.
Deeznuts said on 16/Apr/17
She has short legs
Legs said on 15/Apr/17
She's got legs!!!
Jeff said on 20/Mar/17
Beauty and the Beast was a great movie!
Cassie said on 20/Mar/17
5'2 is out of it. She's not over 5'5, but not under it either.
Katie said on 17/Mar/17
Emma Watson is 5'4 even Vogue Magazine confirmed this: Click Here
apppleee said on 6/Mar/17
She's smaller than Margot Robbie, not that Robbie is tall to begin with but yeah... google them together, she's no more than 5'3 maybe even 5'2 - she's the same height as Lupita Nyong'o and she's only 5'3 according to this website.
Dom said on 3/Mar/17
At the Beauty and the Beast premiere, seems like Celine Dion has 3,5 to 4 inches on her.
XXX said on 2/Mar/17
Please, 5'2 is not very short, it's closer to average than Karlie's height, she's gigantic, she towers over 5'8 people!
Terra said on 2/Mar/17
Daniel 5'5
Emma 5'3
Rupert 5'7
Terra said on 2/Mar/17
5'3
LanaBanana said on 24/Feb/17
Karlie kloss is 6'2 Emma is obviously just under 5'5
heelshealheight said on 21/Feb/17
Emma Watson is below 5ft2 barefoot. She's very short, almost always towered even by average height people.

Check this photo with her next to Karlie Kloss; the height difference is immense: Click Here:
No way said on 17/Feb/17
She's surely over 5'5"
Lily Jarvis said on 13/Feb/17
She's not 5'3" and not 5'6"... maybe 5'5"?
Emma fan said on 27/Jan/17
Close to 5'6 I am sure of if!
A Cold Winter said on 25/Jan/17
You gotta love Emma's height!
John Cage said on 24/Jan/17
She's definitely over 5'5"
LM10-196 cm(6'5'') said on 17/Jan/17
She can't 5'5''.she looks so short next to her boyfriend who's 6'1''.iam guessing she is around 5'1''-5'1.5''
Giorgi said on 10/Dec/16
Rob, it may sound preposterous but I always felt her legs were kinda short so don't you think she would look proportional if we could add about an inch only to her legs?
Editor Rob: yeah Giorgi, her legs certainly aren't that long. With heels any women with average or even slightly less than average legs has a potential to elongate their appearance, which Emma does quite frequently.

Get her barefoot though and you probably would see their length was a little less than average for her height.
oliver said on 22/Nov/16
Rob,one question please. Do you think she is a quarter taller than Radcliffe? I'm just curious. I've watched Harry Potter series and can't tell who is taller. Thanks.
Editor Rob: oliver, they are pretty close...I think it might be only a small fraction between them, but I would still say Emma had a slightly greater chance of measuring a bit taller.
Hdj said on 19/Nov/16
Met her a few years ago.Such a beautiful young woman. Her long legs may give the impression that she is taller than her real height but she still is no less than 5'5
Realist said on 10/Nov/16
Shes 164cms c164 Rupert 171 cms and Daniel 162 cms
Greg said on 21/Oct/16
Have met her, around 2 years ago. Certainly no taller than 5'3", probably closer to 5'2"
Josh said on 16/Oct/16
She's got to be between 5'4-5'4.5
Bambam said on 4/Oct/16
I'm sorry but I have to correct my former post, as it seem I was wrong about my nieces height. She's actually 5'4" and NOT 5'3" so in all fairness I will reconsider my estimate, and put Emma Watson at 5'4"
Fahad said on 4/Oct/16
Not more than 5ft 3in
Bambam said on 30/Aug/16
I haven't meet her but my niece has, and she says Emma is no more than 160 cm as she meet her eye to eye, and my niece is exactly 160 cm. They was wearing same type of footwear. Btw: 160 cm = 5'3" approx.

p.s. It was about four years ago but I doubt Emma have grown taller since then.
giant said on 20/Jun/16
5'3.75"/162cm
6'0tallguy said on 19/Apr/16
I met her and she was definitely about 5'6""
I don't know why someone said everyone who mets her says she is tiny. THEY don"t dsay she is tiny say she is tinier compared to what they thougth!!@ i can understand it because in harry potter she is surrounded by below average men which make her lo ok 6 feet tall. She is 5'5" 5'6" that's for dsure. Just slighlty taller than Kristen Stewart but with great long and toned legs :)
Jay said on 25/Feb/16
Shalabaiz, that first photo is altered. All the others pics shows her above her boyfriends shoulders.
Ella said on 8/Feb/16
Quick question Rob, is 5'4.75" 164cm or 164.5cm?
Editor Rob: it's just under 164.5, so when you round to the closest whole cm you end up with 164
Duda M said on 27/Jan/16
ROB ROB ROB ROB!! can you please update the photo? She has some really amazing photos from 2015... : )
shalabaiz said on 25/Jan/16
Click Here

This is a photo proof and it show's really clearly that Emma Watson is nothing close of being anything near 5ft3 - 5ft6(The latter is just crazy..).. Jay,Bob and Livi: Look at thie photo and this one to:

Click Here

If you still are living in denial after watching these photos,you actually agree with me. Beacuse its crazy to think that she's even close of 5ft3 after watching these photos,and 5ft6 is just foolish and out of this world.. I still belive i can prove you otherwise with these photos..:) So do a serious check with a serious jugdement,and tell me what you all think. In my opinion not even close of 5ft3.
Livi said on 24/Jan/16
Anywhere from 5'4" to 5'6" she's not tall or short she has a really neutral height for a woman...
Jay said on 23/Jan/16
She's around 5'4.
Bob said on 23/Jan/16
She's clearly not 4'2"... she's also not 5'5", maybe in boots with her hair puffed up? She's definitely 5'3" ish.
shalabaiz said on 18/Jan/16
Duda M said on 15/Jan/16
dude are you really trying to convince people that she is 4'2":

In reply to this: Look at the photo with her x-boyfriend Matthew Janney(Or search up photos with him and her),and think it over for å bit.. She's 15-16 inch SHORTER than him on that photo(The link-photo i gave).. Just go down to the link adress,and you will realise this. And if you still dont belive me after watching it,messure up the distance yourself or get a doctor to do it for you. I am just stating a fact here,and she truly needs a massive downgrade. Look here:

Click Here

She's one hell of an actor tho..:).
Duda M said on 15/Jan/16
dude are you really trying to convince people that she is 4'2" when she is clearly around 5'6"...? I think that you should embrace your own height because it's something you can't really change... and you're not really fooling anyone when you write that nonsense.
shalabaiz said on 14/Jan/16
Victoria said on 11/Jan/16 In reply to this: Is very funny to see that your actually claiming she's still 5ft4 after viewing the photo. Cause this is actually a very good proof of that she's nowhere near 5ft4.. As i said messure it up yourself,or go to a doctor or something to check it out. I really hope that you wil try to check it out. Then you might think otherwise. Cause i know the distance from the throat to the back of the scull,and that distance is between 15-16 inch!. I am betting you dont belive me on this,but as i said check it out yourself or have a doctor do it for you. Emma Watson is clearly lying alot about her height,and needs a serious downgrade.

PS!: To all the people out there who think i hate her: I really dont(I got the all the Harry Potter Movies!)..:). She's a great actor,but in the height question she really need a massive downgrad. Only my opinion after watching alot of photos with her X-boyfriend Matthew Janney. And she's only reaching him to maximum the throat(atleast 15-16 inch shorter).
Victoria said on 11/Jan/16
Dude you're honestly so funny, you are right she is definitely around 4 feet if not shorter... I honestly don't know how you can take yourself seriously when you write that but at this point I just keep coming back here to see what you're going to reply
shalabaiz said on 10/Jan/16
Victoria said on 8/Jan/16 -*second of all you're comparing someone who is 6'2 to someone who is 5'5'' and walking... are you going to measure someone when they're walking? no. why? -because they're obviously not standing straight.* In reply to this i can only say that the photo is FROZEN,that means that you can messure it up really easy..And as i said they are both walking side by side. She's bending her head alot to. With All these things in mind and in front of you,you really dont have to be a wizard to find out how tall she really is. She's clearly lying alot about her height,as many celeb does. I really hope that people realise she's alot shorter than some pople might think. Just messure up the distance from the throat and to the scull at the back of the head,and you will find out very fast how much shorter Emma Watson is compared to her x-boyfriend. She really need's a serious downgrade,since she's alot shorter than 5ft4. Everyone in her should agree on this after viewing the photo i linked to. Just go down below and copy the link adress and jugde for yourself!..:).
Victoria said on 10/Jan/16
I honestly don't know why you're so in denial about it. Emma is 5'5'' and has always been 5'5'' ever since she stopped growing, now, you can tell yourself that she is 4 feet or even 3 feet because it won't make her any shorter as much as you want her to be.
shalabaiz said on 9/Jan/16
Victoria said on 8/Jan/16
Shalabaiz so you're saying she's far below 5 feet? In reply to Victoria: Jeah i am saying she's alot shorter than 5ft.. Look at the photo(They are both walking),and its easy to see that she's alot more than 20cm shorter than him. Secondly 6ft2 is not that big of a height,and she's only reaching him to the throat. Messure it up yourself if you dont belive me. So why if they're walking?.. They are walking side by side,and it should be really easy to see how easy it is how much shorter she is. No i dont think 1.64-1.65 i short..And dont make up any story or anything here,just look at the photo and jugde it by that. Then you will see that she's alot shorter. The photo show's more than you really might think..She's way shorter than 5ft..
Victoria said on 8/Jan/16
Shalabaiz so you're saying she's far below 5 feet? do you mean she's a dwarf? first of all... I don't know how tall you are but it looks as if you think 165cm is really tall when in reality it is a really common height for a lady in England and the U.S and sometimes even small depending on who she is standing next to, second of all you're comparing someone who is 6'2 to someone who is 5'5'' and walking... are you going to measure someone when they're walking? no. why? because they're obviously not standing straight.
shalabaiz said on 8/Jan/16
Jimmy said on 6/Jan/16
In reply to shalabaiz: Well,look at the photo and see for yourself.. My point there is that she's alot shorter than 20cm.. To think otherwise is just foolish.. Just messure it up yourself if you dont belive me.. The distance from the throat to the back of the head is ALOT more than 20cm. So as i said check it out for yourself:).
Jimmy said on 6/Jan/16
In reply to shalabaiz: I think it's weird how you're comparing someone who is 1.85 m to someone who is 1.65 m... Do you really think a 20cm difference wouldn't be apparent?? Give me a break
shalabaiz said on 5/Jan/16
Lily said on 3/Jan/16
She's 5'5'' (1.65 m) for sure:* That's just insane to think.. Look at my photo-link below. It's a photo with her boyfriend/x-botfriend Matthew Janney,which is listed as 6ft1(onlye 1.80 cm aprox!).. She's only reaching him to his throat(and bending her head alot).. So she's nowhere near 5ft4,not even close of 5ft either. Look at the photo and use some logic. She clearly lies alot about her height(and you to if you really mean that she's 5ft4,cause she's clearly not!).. The photo show's it alt..

Bob has a point in his statement,thumps up to you!:),
shalabaiz said on 4/Jan/16
Bob said on 2/Jan/16 : Your right she truly needs a downgrade. Look at my link down below and look at how short she is compared to her boyfriend/x-boyfriend Matthew Janney.. The photo/photos are from 2014,and show's how short Emma Watson really is. She's not even close of being 5ft3 either. If you messure up the distance from the throat to the upper skull,you will realise/discover that she's ALOT shorter than him. He is listed as 6ft1,wich i belive is nothing more than 1.80 cm aprox. So its impossible that she's even close of 5ft3. Since the distance from the throat to the upper skull is about 15-16 inch,you really dont have any problems in finding out how tall she really is:). But as i said look at the link-photos down below,and jugde for yourself!:). PS!: Vogue only want click's!
Lily said on 3/Jan/16
She's 5'5'' (1.65 m) for sure, I met her a few months ago and we were exactly the same height and she wasn't wearing heels or anything of that kind... I just find it funny when people make assumptions about other people's height, like they're saying she looks 5 feet!!!!! that sounds insane to me! Do I look that short??? honestly 5'5'' is actually average (or maybe just a bit above average) but it's definitely not short.
Bob said on 2/Jan/16
Vogue reported her as being 5'4" in 2015. I think she might be 5'4" in shoes on a good morning - I stood in line behind her at LAX last year and she was much shorter than me (5'11) and nowhere near looking like a 5'4.75" girl, more like 5'3". Great posture though. Seriously needs a downgrade
shalabaiz said on 27/Dec/15
Click Here

Something went wrong in my last post.

Here is the link-adress,just type it in and see for yourself:). Emma Watson is clearly nothing close of 5ft4. So jugde for yourself.
shalabaiz said on 26/Dec/15
Hmm hey everyone i am back. And with the same proof: Her she is standing next to 6ft1 listed Matthew Janney(boyfriend/Her X-Boyfriend). Link:: Click Here
This is actualy a proof. Messure the distance from your throat to the top of the head if you dont belive me. Or have someone there to do the job.
To PerA: Your your example is pretty good,and pretty right to:). She alot shorter than the most of the people in her belive. Look at this photo and you will see how short she is. She is as i said before.not even CLOSE to 5ft4 or anything like that. The link with the photo above proves it. Or Her again if you like:

Click Here
shalabaiz said on 25/Dec/15
Hmm hey everyone i am back. And with the same proof: Her she is standing next to 6ft1 listed Matthew Janney(boyfriend/Her X-Boyfriend). Link:: Click Here
This is actualy a proof. Messure the distance from your throat to the top of the head if you dont belive me. Or have someone there to do the job.
To PerA: Your your example is pretty good,and pretty right to:). She alot shorter than the most of the people in her belive. Look at this photo and you will see how short she is. She is as i said before.not even CLOSE to 5ft4 or anything like that. The link with the photo above proves it. Or Her again if you like:

Click Here
anon said on 6/Oct/15
Emma is no less than 164 cm. Here she is pictured with Cameron Diaz, both with pretty good stances... Emma's heel is slightly bigger because she has a platform, but Cameron doesn't TOWER over her. Cameron is 174 CM - 5'8, so I would say Emma is around 3 inches shorter give or take... listing seems accurate!

Click Here
PierA said on 1/Sep/15
Don't know if it's any great indication of her exact height, but I saw her in person at Taylor Swift's Hyde Park show in London earlier this summer and she was about 100 feet away. She was absolutely tiny! Much smaller than I expected. She was wearing flat shoes and all of her companions towered over her. I also saw Gwyneth Paltrow and the rest of Taylor's squad (Gigi, Kendall, Cara, Karlie and Martha) and they looked as tall and long-limbed as I expected them to be.
rach55 said on 24/Aug/15
Both her and Daniel Radcliffe are around 5 ft 3.5 or 4, the VOGUE article says she's 5ft 4 in and he is around her height. Same for Kristen Stewart, nothing more..
kingsman said on 24/Aug/15
Rob, if Nina Dobreve is listed as 5 feet 5 inches, which sounds okay, how can Emma be 5ft 4.75in? She is definitely around 5ft 3.5in.
Also, Helena Bonham carter is 5ft 2in according to her., so emma is about 5ft 3 in if you look at the shoes in the picture which has been posted already
rach55 said on 24/Aug/15
i met her in topshop in london in 2009. she didn't want to take a picture with me but i am 5 feet 3 in and when we stood next to each other we were the same height. i would say she's in that range. her classmates at brown say that she looks much shorter than in pics and is very tiny. its posted online.
marley said on 19/Aug/15
Recent VOGUE article says she is 5 ft 4 inches. She definitely needs a downgrade, Rob. Everyone who meets her says she is around 5 feet 3 inches and very tiny.
mande2013 said on 20/Jun/15
Since when is 164 cms 'short' for a female? Short for a female would be sub-160 IMO.
Annoyed said on 19/Jun/15
She is 164-165cm I dont understand why some people try to say they she is shorter. Just because your are short no just kidding. But really she is about that height.
katie666 said on 17/May/15
me and emma same height;p
Shan said on 27/Apr/15
"Tom says on Apr 26 2015: I recently went to a celebrity event with her and I took a picture with her. I am 5-2 and a man, and next to her I expected to feel small, but I actually felt humiliated. I was smaller by an amount I hadnt anticipated. She was in platform heels and honestly looked about 8 inches taller then me or more. So if the heels were about 3 inches, she must be at least 5-7. My guess though would be closer to 5-8." You're a midget. Everybody looks "at least 5'8" to you.
Tom said on 26/Apr/15
I recently went to a celebrity event with her and I took a picture with her. I am 5-2 and a man, and next to her I expected to feel small, but I actually felt humiliated. I was smaller by an amount I hadnt anticipated. She was in platform heels and honestly looked about 8 inches taller then me or more. So if the heels were about 3 inches, she must be at least 5-7. My guess though would be closer to 5-8.
Ally said on 13/Apr/15
Without heels, she looks shorter than Dan who is listed as 5'5 so she isn't more than 5'4.5 or maybe 5'4.
Liz said on 19/Feb/15
Met Emma when she was at Brown! Lovely girl, she is absolutely tiny. 5'3 tops! I was even surprised at how short she was, guess everyone in Hollywood exaggerates their height?
LOVE said on 20/Jan/15
I love you Em ,your height 5.7 inch
Mystery said on 8/Jan/15
I think she is more 5'3 if you have seen her pictured with Rupert and Daniel without heels. Since Daniel is 5'5, then he looks to have about 2 inches taller than her.
kay said on 12/Dec/14
@AndreaB you didn't consider the fact that Rupert is wearing 1 inch shoes that would make him 5'9"ish, also he's standing closer to the camera than her so that makes him appear taller. this listing is accurate.
Anne said on 5/Dec/14
If she took off those heels, right then and there, she'd be about 4 1/2-5 inches shorter than Rupert and about 1 1/2 inches shorter than Daniel.
I would bet money that Emma is a solid 5f3.5...possibly 5f4. But not more than that. She is a little short and she looks it.
Kks said on 1/Dec/14
She looks about 2 inches shorter than Daniel Radcliffe in normal shoes. I think she's about 5'3.
Robin said on 26/Nov/14
She beautifull in the world
Arch Stanton said on 28/Oct/14
Now I'd describe Bipashu Basu as really superhot...
Arch Stanton said on 22/Oct/14
She's a nice looking gal David but I wouldn't describe her as all that!!
shalabaiz said on 4/Sep/14
I have just been confirmed that the distance between the nose and the skull on the back of the head for a normal man, is about 9 inches by searching it up on the internet.

SO: If Emma Watson is reaching her *previous* boyfriend to the throat its actually really easy to messure how much taller he is then her,when the only thing you have to do is to messure the distance from his throat and up to the bottom of his face.
And its around 3,54 inches from the bottom of his(the tip on the bottom of a normal man's face wich is the bottom point on the head!) face to his nose and 9 inches from his nose tho the back of his skull.(This is the normal distance for a normal man!)

SO in other words: If she's reaching him only to the throat wich she is,then you'll know that she's not even CLOSE of being 5.4 or more..

And she's bending her head so much upwords and he is lowering down his head so that actually proves she's way shorter than the photo is actually showing, beacuse she's 13inch compared to him despite bending her head alot,his only listed as 6ft1 which i belive is only 1.85 and is a minimum of 13inches taller then her as you all can see if your'e using your head/brain a bit..:):)

And This has nothing to do with her skills as an actor or anything.

To all the people who dont belive me: Search for the difference yourself and you will see that i have a point in my statement's.

(for example search for: The distance from the back of the scull to the bottom of the face/the tip.

I am just stating a fact her and that is that she's miles away of being 5ft4 or more since my personal guess is that she's pretty short wich i belive is nothing more than 4ft5 approx and it suits her petite figure perfectly.



The reason behind my opinion(4ft5) is that she's bending her head so much upwords and his lowering his head the same,therefor i belive she's gaining alot of inches/cm for that reason.

For the record: i hope to get a serious answer from either Rob or someone with knowledge,beacuse Emma Watson is clearly lying alot about her height!

BTW: I am sorry for my long post but i am only stating a fact.
AndreaB said on 3/Sep/14
Rob, if you are saying that Emma's heels give her 4.25 inches of extra height, and you say she is 5f4.75, wouldn't she be taller than Rupert? This adds up to 5f9. Rupert is 5f8-5f8 1/s with shoes on in this pic. She isn't taller than him.
She really needs a downgrade to 5f3.75 or 5f4.
shalabaiz said on 2/Sep/14
No THATS not just 10inch..
TRY and go to your doctor or something to check it out if you dont belive me..
Beacuse that is certainly 13(35cm!) inch or probarly more since she's moving her head upwords if you look closely!
Her is the photo again: Where she is only reaching him to the throat despite bending her head upwords.: Click Here

SO in other words: She's not even close of being 5ft4/1.64.
That's just bull****!
shaunfiveten said on 29/Aug/14
I think this new listing is pretty much spot on. I've always thought she was between 5ft 4 and 5ft 5 since she can look both heights, she and Selena Gomez both have the same kind of smallish frame and physique.
Now we just have to figure out if Radcliffe really is a true 5ft 5 guy or if he can dip under that mark.
littlesue said on 29/Aug/14
Lol, thats not 13 or 14 inches!! looks more 9 to 10 inches to me. Thats how 4ft 11 me looks next to my 5ft 9 sons
shalabaiz said on 28/Aug/14
Her Is A Better Proof that she is no where near 5ft4.. probarly 4f9 or less..

Click Here
shalabaiz said on 28/Aug/14
She's probarly nothing more than 4ft9-5.0 the most barefoot.. Her is some photos of her and her boyfriend walking on a beach together.. He is listed as 6ft1 or 1.85 cm.. Here are the photos:Click Here
shalabaiz said on 27/Aug/14
Emma Watson are not even close of being 5ft4.. Her is some photos of her and her boyfriend who is listed as 6ft1/1.85 cm..:Click Here They are walking side by side on a beach and you can clearly see that he is about 13-14 inch taller than her on several of these photos(Just below/on his chin)..
ice said on 15/Jul/14
Here's another photo from the same event. Click Here
:D said on 15/Jul/14
Looks shorter next to Jennifer Lawrence Click Here
ice said on 13/Jul/14
I see a good 3.5 inches here. Rob, do you agree? Click Here
[Editor Rob: in that photo it can appear around that much, but I don't know if the photo is stretching the actual difference or not - in some portrait shots, height can be added compared to if you took it landscape mode.]
Realist said on 23/Apr/14
How tall do you think her brother is 5'8.5-5'9.
Erica said on 13/Apr/14
If we take Rupert's height to be a fact at 5f7 3/4, he is about 1/4 inch taller than Emma in this picture. Don't count the spikes on top of her head!

Emma is wearing stilettos that are about 5-6 inches in the heel AND they have about a 1-1 1/2 inch platform in the front.... which will give her more height that the heels alone.
With the platform, a shoe like this will give her a good 5 inches in height (without the platform, I'd say 4 inches).
So whatever height Emma is, we need to add about 5 inches to it. If she is 5f5, she'd be 5f10 with these heels...which she clearly isn't. If she is 5f4, she should be 5f9...again, she clearly isn't.
So if she is 5f3 1/2, then she'd be 5f8 1/2. Which is more believable, though I'd still say no because she isn't taller than Rupert.
I'd say his shoes give him a 1/2 inch boost. So he's standing at 5f8 1/4 -5f8 1/2 in this picture. This makes Emma anywhere from 5f3-5f4...barefoot.
K said on 4/Apr/14
If she was accurately measured on a live tv show, I would wager that she was closer to 5'3 than 5'4. Compare her to Jennifer Connelly. She's noticeably smaller. Actresses, agents, publicists, fans always add inches to actresses' heights. Look at the exaggerated height listings on IDBM. There are times when they actually add more than two inches to a female celebrity's actual height.
Andrea said on 3/Apr/14
Emma Watson is small framed, most likely 5'3"-5'4", and she is thin. When she wears platform shoes, her legs look tend to look off balance with the shoes.
Emma has nice legs, but they are not particularly long. With that said, they aren't short either. Taller people, even skinny ones, can pull off high heels better.
Just pay attention to the length of her calves and you'll see that she cannot be more than 5'4".
She has a cute figure and is quite pretty, but it doesn't mean we need to credit her with more height just because she'd like to be taller.
It looks as though most people here, even those that have actually seen her in person, agree she is about 5'3" - 5'4".
Rob, don't you think 5'4" represents her closer to her real height?
[Editor Rob: I think if you look at her with other potter cast, people I've seen (your tom felton/evanna lynches etc), it is easier to see her as somewhere in the 5ft 4-5 range than 5ft 3-4 range.]
K said on 2/Apr/14
You're the expert, Rob. I'm pretty sure that you're better at guessing heights than I am and I may be "prejudiced" because I've known so many girls who exaggerate their height. I'm sure this is a common practice among actresses too. It would be so much easier if they had to be accurately measured before they could get a SAG card (or the British equivalent)!
marla singer said on 2/Apr/14
Even though I appreciate the downgrade that finally arrived, I still think 5 ft 4.25 (163.5 cm) would be more accurate for Emma, while I'd put Daniel at 5 ft 4.75 (164.5 cm), he's under 5 ft 5 aswell. Emma is actually closer to 5'4" than 5'5" and I see that more and more people agree with this... what do you think Rob?
[Editor Rob: you could argue anywhere in the 5ft 4-5 range, at times she can look all of them!]
K said on 1/Apr/14
Watch Noah and compare her to Jennifer Connelly. You might "downgrade" her height to 5'3 after you do. This is based on commercials.
[Editor Rob: I think 5ft 4.5 is maybe a better shout, like radcliffe both can be called weak 5ft 5 range, but 5ft 3 I couldn't argue that one.]
Balrog said on 1/Apr/14
No littlesue I think those heels give 3in, what do you think Rob? Either way she is struggling to look more than 5'4" next to Pine
[Editor Rob: I don't know how well she is standing, I think they do give 3 actual inches]
littlesue said on 1/Apr/14
Balrog those heels would'nt give as much as you think, no platform, would probably add just over 2 inches of height
Balrog said on 31/Mar/14
Rob, here's Emma next to Chris Pine:

Click Here

Her footwear: Click Here

His footwear: Click Here

You think she looks 5'5'' next to him? I know she is leaning a bit...
[Editor Rob: she looks under it, 4.5 is probably for the last year or so been a mark that is closer, like radcliffe both could fall into the sub 5ft 5 zone.]
K said on 27/Mar/14
I think that no name is right. She looks to be about 5'3 next to the taller Jennifer Connelly in commercials for Noah. In fact, she looks quite a bit smaller. She might be one of those actresses who exaggerates their height. Maybe she wears lifts? ;)
Chris said on 21/Mar/14
I don't care how tall she is because she's so gorgeous. That's why i go on a website called celebheights to exclaim i don't care about the height of the person whose height i looked up. Logic has always been my strong point.
Pinky said on 20/Mar/14
ok Rob but I never said the shoes give her 5.5, just that those shoes ARE 5.5 so (for me) in the photo she is IN 5.5-inches heels.
If Jennifer Connelly is 5'6.5" don't think Emma is 5'5"
[Editor Rob: usually I'm trying to describe what the actual footwear gives, I suppose there is always going to be some confusion over footwear and how to describe it.]
Pinky said on 19/Mar/14
Rob in the photo with Daniel and Rupert Emma is no wearing 4-inch heels. They are 14 cm (5.5 inches) with 4 cm platform: Click Here
With Jennifer Connelly, both wearing high heels without platform: Click Here

Almost 5'4.
[Editor Rob: they are called 5.5 but they really wouldn't give 5.5 of actual height, they would give likely 4 inches and a bit.

when you go on your max tip-toes Like in this video you can get nearly 3 inches (with about size 5-6), so the max when you then stand on a 1.5 inch platform part would be almost 4.5...but I don't think the angle is quite a 'maximum' so I think about 4.25 would be what they give.]
Spider said on 16/Mar/14
my dream girl emma got my height that is 5'5
no nickname said on 12/Mar/14
Accounts from schoolmates during her first years at university claimed heights between 5'2" and 5'4". Nothing taller, nothing shorter. I guess you could average it out to 5'3".
MishaDale said on 5/Mar/14
Sometimes one inch can make a huge difference and other times it means nothing.
Emma, I don't believe is 5'5". I believe her to be barely 5'4" or 5'3 1/2". That one inch to put her at 5'5" makes a huge difference in how she should look.
Her arms and legs and torso don't look right for a taller person. I realize that 5'5" isn't really that tall, but to be honest, Emma's limbs look like they belong on a shorter person.
And I see here that she has even claimed 5'6"! That is laughable. Look at her and Jessica Alba who is 5'6 1/2". Though even same height people have variable bone structure and limb lengths, there is a huge difference in bone structure and limb length between these two ladies.
Emma is small and that is all there is to it.
marla singer said on 19/Feb/14
Emma in 2.5"/2.75" heels ( Click Here ) with 6'0.5"-listed Chris Pine Click Here . Her 5'6" claim is ridiculous - I am 5'5" and I would look that short only next to a 6'3"+ guy - and besides, look at Chris with 5'7" Keira Knightley who had similar heels (about 2.75" high): Click Here ...Keira looks 3 good inches taller next to Chris (in comparison to Emma of course)

Everytime Emma appears shorter than listed... 5'3.75" to 5'4.5", downgrade please.
blake said on 17/Feb/14
well I now she is 5'5 (165)
176,2Tunman said on 7/Feb/14
The more I look to this girl the more I think she's 5'4-4.5 rather than a solid 5'5.Starring next to a short guy like Radcliffe certainly helped the impression of her being an upper average girl.If Sophia Coppola is 5'5 then she's maybe 5'4.5, perfect average for a perfect looking girl.
arthur fran said on 27/Jan/14
well i just think she is 172
Charlie said on 8/Jan/14
I just saw This is the End and she looked small. She is like 5´3
Lala said on 2/Jan/14
She should be downgraded to 5'4 and even that is generous. She's probably 5'3.
marla singer said on 11/Nov/13
Emma with J.K. Rowling (0.75in more footwear than Emma due to bigger platform) and Stella McCartney (0.75in more footwear than Emma) who claims to be 165 cm tall (and looks it: with 175 cm Paltrow Click Here and
with 168 cm Kate Hudson Click Here ) -> Click Here Emma and Joanne both look pretty shorter than her... 163-164 cm for Emma, and 161-162 for Joanne. It is undeniable that Emma every now and then looks shorter than listed, so a downgrade would be very welcome. :]
step92 said on 22/Aug/13
She's my preferite ! But i don't believe that she's 165! She have the same height of Kristen Stewart, or really near! I think that she is 162-163 max! Radcliffe is about 163 and Grint about 170!
avi said on 6/Aug/13
Well if Rupert is 5'8.75 in shoes he is like 2 inches taller than her in heels. So 5'4 seems more accurate. My 5'3.5-5'4ish sister is 5'6.75 area and i had bout 7 on her in my dress shoes.came up to lip area.
little sue said on 31/Jul/13
I agree with you about the heels Sammy, shorter women in those higher heels with platforms look out of proportion and push the leg forward too much, usually because they have smaller feet to balance on, average and tall height women carry them off better.
Sammy said on 29/Jul/13
Emma is just s smidge shorter than Coppola in that red dress picture provided by "K" and her heels are probably an inch (or 3/4 inches) higher than Coppola's. This doesn't equal to 5f5, Rob. If Coppola is 5f4.5 as listed, then Emma is 5f3.5 or 5f4.
If Coppola is 5f5, then Emma is 5f4.
Emma is smaller that 5f5. She doesn't have the body lengths to support more than 5f3.5...IMO. Bone structure and length of her limbs (talking about calf to knee; knee to hip, wrist to elbow, etc) are that of a person who is on the shorter side of average. And when she wears heels, like all shorter women, the heels look significant on her legs. Taller people pull heels off better because the heel doesn't stand out so much as their legs are longer and balance the length of the heel. Emma's calves and her heels don't balance out like a woman who is taller than 5f3.5 or 5f4.
I know this may seem crazy to some people, but I notice these things. Shorter women's legs in heels tend to get lost in the heels. Think of Eva Longoria or Lady Gaga. Emma is a bit taller, but not by much.
R said on 26/Jul/13
@Ullala - Ballet Shoes was filmed when she was 17 and the two girls playing her sisters were 15 and 11/12 respectively....
Seen her in person and she might clear 5'6" in heels. 5'2" or 5'3" at best.
ullala said on 13/Jul/13
Look at her in ballet shoes. She is the tallest of them all. I would really say 5'6
PlamBam said on 17/Jun/13
I don't care how tall (or "short") she is, she's gorgeous!

By far THE most beautiful young actress in HW today! :o)
SelmaMartin said on 10/Jun/13
I've seen Emma Watson in person. Two years ago on London and I was close enough to her to gauge height.. She is NOT 5f5 Rob.
She wore flat gladiator sandals and was 5f3 1/2 ...MAYBE 5f4. I'm 5f4 1/2 and she was about and inch or slightly less shorter than me.
When I saw her, she hadn't put on the extra pounds that she did later that year....so her height and weight were pretty steady (meaning as I was used to seeing her). Sometimes when people gain or loose weight they can look taller or shorter depending on body structure.
She was probably about my weight...110. She is a small framed young woman, and her stature around others as well, was shorter than average, so 5f5 is not accurate. I know celebs usually lie about and inch so if you subtract an inch, Rob, you get 5f4. This sounds right.
Pedro said on 4/Jun/13
@marla There are places where Sofia Coppola's height is being listed at 5'5.5". So there are many ways of reading it. But, sure, it is quiet possibly that Emma is between 5'4.5" and 5'5". Most celebrities round their height up when it contains fractions.
R said on 4/Jun/13
In 6in platforms, she's at least 4in shorter than a slumpy/slouchy just-under-5'11" Seth Rogen at the This is the End LA premiere today. Say the shoes give her 4.5" easily... That's 8.5 inches less than 5'11"... So she's... 5'2.5"??
I think her height has been exaggerated by her PR (for what reason, I don't know... Nothing wrong with being petite)
marla singer said on 1/Jun/13
@Pedro your picture is better but she looks nearer 5 ft 4 again because Elle has 1 inch less footwear and looks a good 3 inches taller. I also found these pictures that make me think she is shorter than Sofia Coppola Click Here and Click Here
Pedro said on 31/May/13
@marla Here is a better picture to compare Emma Watson with Elle Fanning: Click Here
:-) said on 30/May/13
I just watched the last Harry potter movie. In one of the last scene's they all stand next to each other in height order, they are all wearing similair footwear, and the camera zooms away from them
Radcliffe is 1 inch shorter than her but looks almost the same height because of his poofy hair, so if Daniel Radcliffe is 5'5 she's 5'6, like she said.
However Radcliffe could be shorter, so maybe more 5'4 for him 5'5 for her.
marla singer said on 18/May/13
I think you should have downgraded Emma instead, here she has bigger heels than Elle Fanning (172 cm) but she looks 5-6 inches shorter than her. That would mean she's 5 ft 3, being generous. Emma's heels Click Here and Elle's Click Here together: Click Here and Click Here I'd put her at 5 ft 4, or 5 ft 4.5, to give her the benefit of the doubt, but 5 ft 5 seems a stretch. Both her and Radcliffe look under 5 ft 5...
[Editor Rob: 5ft 4.5 is a possibility, both her/radcliffe could be classed as weak 5ft 5, dropping a bit under it.]
marla singer said on 17/May/13
Rob could you have a look and see if you agree? As K says, Emma seems shorter than 5 ft 4.5 in Sofia Coppola. Here they had similar heels. Sofia's Click Here Emma's Click Here video Click Here
Here Emma has much more heel, yet she looks barely taller Click Here Sofia's heels Click Here , Emma's Click Here
[Editor Rob: I think they could be very similar barefoot, maybe both 5ft 5...I will give sofia that, but I know people have been arguing emma could be 5ft 4.5 herself for a while...]
K said on 16/May/13
Click Here
Click Here
Either Soffia Coppola needs an upgrade or Emma Watson needs a downgrade. Soffia Coppola is listed as 5'4.5" on this site and she is the same height if not taller than Emma Watson in a smaller heel. These pictures were taken yesterday at the Cannes Film Festival.
I \'m a shortie so everyone is tall to me said on 23/Apr/13
All I know is that Daniel Radcliffe has said several times he is 5"5' and he looks slightly taller than Emma when they are both in tennis shoes. So she is probably 5"3' - 5"4'. She did have a big growth spurt though. I mean in the first few HP movies, Daniel was way taller then Emma all of the sudden caught up. But I like that Daniel is short because he shows people that smaller men can prevail. But I remember at the cemerony there they did their foot prints I think they took their shoes off or at least Emma did
marla singer said on 9/Apr/13
here it is Click Here
marla singer said on 8/Apr/13
It's impossible for Nina to be over 5'5. She's a smudge shorter than Josh Hutcherson listed at 5'5 too (see him with Jennifer Lawrence). they had similar footwear here and Josh is visibly taller Click Here To be fair, Josh should be upgraded to 5'5.25, Nina's listing unchanged, and Emma downgraded to 5'4.25 or 5'4.5
Caroline said on 5/Apr/13
@nicky I actually think Nina needs an upgrade, I think she's around 5'6 - 5'6.5
And compared to Rupert Grint who probably wear lifts, Emma looks 5'5 to me.
marla singer said on 8/Mar/13
Kate Bosworth? 165 cm
Emma Watson? 165 cm
Kate's flat sneakers (2nd pic, scroll down) Click Here Emma's flat sandals Click Here But hey... Kate is almost 3 inches taller even if she's bending down, and Emma's also got camera advantage. Click Here
And these girls are supposed to look -roughly- the same height... I'll just say ok ;)
[Editor Rob: on flatter ground and similarish heels I think they can look pretty nearer]
K said on 15/Feb/13
I don't understand how anyone could say she's any less than 5'4". I always thought she looked around 5'5". No less than 5'4.5" and no more than 5'5.5". I personally think she's a weak 5'5".
Maximus Meridius said on 17/Jan/13
Rob is there any chance you would be in the 5ft 4in range or at least a fraction over 5ft 4in.
[Editor Rob: like radcliffe, there's always a chance they'd be 5ft 4.5-5]
marla singer said on 17/Jan/13
Rob I have another similar question about the HP cast: whose height we are 100% sure of is Tom Felton's 5 ft 8.5, because you met him. Let's say he was 176-177 cm with shoes on; Emma had these big heels that gave her 4 inches minimum if not more Click Here so she's supposed to stand 175-176 cm tall with them on, if she's 5 ft 5. But she looks 4-5 cm shorter than Tom Felton, and visibly shorter than Rupert Grint too (Rupert is 174-175 in shoes..) Click Here so maybe 5 ft 4 is more accurate for her?
I think she has a quite taller appearence because of her thin, long legs but when you compare her to other stars she rarely looks over that mark. Hope the links work this time :)
[Editor Rob: if she was standing at her tallest in the photo then she definitely can appear nearer 5ft 4 than 5]
Shane said on 10/Jan/13
I think she is 5.41/2....
theblacklab said on 21/Dec/12
marla singer, I agree. I always thought she looked more 5'3.5" to 5'4" range. Since she's 19 when that photo was taken she's probably reached adult height. Emma's height always was confusing as; unlike many actresses who achieve fame in their adult years, Emma was very young when she accomplished the same. This makes it a whole lot more difficult for people like Rob to estimate height, because it is completely dependent on how old she was when she made a particular claim or what year it was when a photo was taken that divulges her height somewhat.
marla singer said on 21/Dec/12
@theblacklab: the photos where I compared Clemence Poesy and Emma were taken in 2009, when Emma was already 19..!
I think Rob is being unfair to some celebrities (like Hilary Duff who deserves 1in upgrade minimum, Miley Cyrus who is much taller than 5'4.5" and so on) while is being too generous to others (Kristen Stewart, who's listed as 163 but looks like 2in shorter than 164 Greene, 5'4" Michelle Williams who looks shorter than 5'4" Mila Kunis...). I can understand there can be some mistakes but this is evident: Emma looks shorter than her claim most of the times, and since she often looks even under 5'3" (Click Here), to me she's 5'4" tops until proven wrong. :)
theblacklab said on 20/Dec/12
marla singer, how old is the photo of Emma and Clemence standing together? If it is recent then Emma is likely her full adult height in the photo. However, if its several years old, then she could have had some more growing to do.
Ollie said on 14/Dec/12
the person who keeps posting on various celebs' heights things like 'Emma Watson is 5'6" or 168 cm in her bare feet. Clemence Poesy is 5'8" or 173 cm in her bare feet. Paris Hilton is 5'9" or 174 cm in her bare feet' is just a troll, don't answer to that. seen that many times, just names of the celebs vary & their exaggerated heights.
Wind said on 29/Nov/12
laughing my butt off with the girl who said miley is 5'10". First of, she never claimed anything more than 5'6". Second of she barely reaches Liam's chin. Miley is 5'4.75" at most. I know that cause I am that tall and my fiance is 6'1.5". And yes, Emma is 5'4" and has a perfect small, elegant figure.
Helo said on 21/Nov/12
5'4 5'5 for her
marla singer said on 7/Nov/12
I'd like to see some 5 ft 5 proofs aswell, cause as for now nobody seems able to prove she's that tall. @Ria, Clemence Poesy, the blonde girl, is listed 168 cm tall (5 ft 6) Click Here here Emma was 15 and had a bit less footwear than Clemence but looks a lot shorter, and notice that Katie Leung who is 164 cm tall has flat boots but looks taller than Emma too. Another proof:
Emma's platform heels Click Here
Clemence's heels Click Here
Together, standing Click Here
Emma wears 1 inch more footwear but still looks like 2.5 in shorter; but since Clemence is closer to the camera, those 2.5 are more likely to be 1.5 in. Add to 1 in advantage the 1.5 difference and you get Emma 2.5 in shorter than her: if Clemence is 168 then Emma is 162-163 right?

Everyone if I'm wrong, tell me where xD
susan said on 9/Oct/12
5'5 is too tall for her. 5'6 and 5'7 claims are really off. she's maybe a weak 5'4. 161 or 162 cm i'd say. no taller
J said on 7/Oct/12
Height is definitely exaggerated. She is under 5'4" on a good morning, probably closer to 5'2" in the afternoon.
Jess said on 6/Oct/12
165cm? Totally unconvincing. According to all the evidence below, she must be around 160cm or even less. This page doesn't seem to be up to date.
marla singer said on 1/Oct/12
Here 5'5"-5'5.5" Nina Dobrev with 2.75in Sanderson sandals is taller enough than Emma, who is wearing 2.75-3in Tom Ford round toe heels. And Nina is slouching as well... Click Here
marla singer said on 17/Sep/12
@bill it's Dan the slightly taller one (min. 5'4.5") check it here I already posted this 2007 pic (Emma in flats, Dan in a thicker shoe) I still wonder how is it possible that Emma doesn't look much taller than 5'0 Staunton in flats (professor Umbridge in HP) Click Here
@J Emma's heels above are max 5inches high, I'm sure. Ripa instead actually wore 6in heels so she had 5in over Emma, not 4. Ripa looked taller than her by max 3in (4 is way too much)! so if Ripa was about 5'7" in heels, Emma was 5'4" in flats.
bill said on 16/Sep/12
Emma 163cm,Dan 160cm
mina said on 14/Sep/12
Emma is 5'3.Maybe 5'3.5.Nina Dobrev is at least 2-3 inches taller at 5'5.5
J said on 14/Sep/12
@Rent Girl - I saw that too. Rob always says heel height gives a different boost of height - the heels Emma has on in the above photo are six inch heels but apparently only give her 4 inches. So Ripa is 5'2" + 4 = 5'6" in heels. Emma in flats is 4 inches shorter... So she's 5'2"...

Never understood her exaggerated height claims, she's nowhere near 5'5".
RentGirl said on 13/Sep/12
I watched Live! with Kelly and Michael and Kelly towered over Emma by four inches. But Emma was wearing ballet flats and Kelly was wearing six inch heels.
marla singer said on 11/Sep/12
Rob, you could find this pic interesting! Click Here
Natalia Tena, 5'5.75", in the floral dress on the right was wearing completely flat sandals at the premiere. Next to her, Emma had 4-5in heels but looked just slightly taller than Natalia...
[Editor Rob: you've got tom felton on her other side though who is pretty much 5ft 8.5 i think.]
marla singer said on 10/Sep/12
I think Nina's heels were at least 1 inch higher, but Nina looked 2 full inches taller than Emma; I find it difficult to believe they are the same height.
I'm still convinced Emma is 5'4"
e said on 9/Sep/12
@J I came here for the same reason, lol. I think Dobrev is wearing slightly higher heels so they could be roughly the same height, but 5'6" is definitely a stretch.
Click Here
J said on 9/Sep/12
Looked at least two inches shorter than Nina Dobrev at the Perks premiere at TIFF. Dobrev is listed at 5'5" here, so Watson must logically be arouund 5'3". It's clear her height has always been exaggerated a bit - Bonnie Wright is apparently 5'5.5", and yet Emma in heels was the same height when Bonnie was in flats. She seems to have a prominent forehead - is that what makes her appear taller in solo photographs?
marla singer said on 8/Sep/12
Emma looked shorter than 5'4.5" listed Katie Leung on several occasions.
Here Katie had a fraction less footwear than Emma:
Click Here
With similar sized heels:
Click Here
Click Here
So either Emma is 5'3.75", or Katie is almost 5'6"!
marla singer said on 2/Aug/12
Emma with 5'2.5" Evanna Click Here
Emma has, I think, 1.6"-1.75" heel on, so she stood about 169-170 cm tall. Evanna had 0.5" Vans sneaker and looked 3" shorter than Emma. But:
- Evanna is no 5'3.5" nor 5'4"
- Daniel is no 5'6"... so something must be wrong here?
bill said on 27/Jul/12
167 cm
marla singer said on 26/Jul/12
She can't be 5'5", here she stands in a 5" pair of pumps next to Julie Walters (weak 5'3, wearing flats) Click Here those pumps gave her about 4" height advantage; considering that she towered over Julie and the difference between them was around 4.5", 5'4" for Emma sounds about right
marla singer said on 17/Jun/12
In this pic (2007) next to 6 ft-Matthew Lewis (they were all standing, but we can't see their footwear) doesn't look over 5'3".
Click Here
Next to 5'2-Helena Bonham Carter, who's carrying a baby Click Here
With HP cast, is shorter than Daniel Radcliffe and also doesn't appear noticeably taller than 5'0" Imelda Staunton Click Here
I guess 5'4"
theblacklab said on 10/Jun/12
Just from the above picture alone, you can tell Emma is in the 5'3" to 5'4" range, take away Emma's 5 inch platforms, and you get an Emma 2 to 3" shorter than Daniel. I probably presume Dan in wearing 1.5" lifts. This would make Emma about 5'3.5" to 5'4".
Haily said on 12/Feb/12
I am sorry but i do not believe that Emma is that short cuz i know of many celebrities that are 5ft 4in and they are SO skinny and Emma is skinny but not as skinny as the others and i know she is taller that my mom so maybe at min Emma is 5ft 5in and max 5ft 6in
marla singer said on 12/Feb/12
Hilary Duff is a believable 5'2, right?
If you look at this pic Click Here you'll notice that Emma and Hilary are pretty similar in size. Their proportions are both of a short girl, though Emma's legs look leaner and a bit longer than Hilary's.
So, in my opinion Emma is 5'3 and maybe even a fraction under 5'4. But not over.
dean said on 11/Feb/12
What happened to all the comments that proved she was less than 5'4"? Saw her in Islington twice two years ago, she couldn't have been more than 158 to 162 cm, and even that is generous. Tiny, very tiny. Not even average height.
Haily said on 10/Feb/12
um well i am NOT delusional and i have looked this up on TONS of websites and they all say around 5ft 6in i believe in that. She is very pretty. some pictures she looks weird but most she looks nice. and Dan is short we all know that Harry potter us supposed to be tall but not everything can be perfect.
M M said on 1/Feb/12
I always believe in editor Rob. He's an expert and his height sense is very keen. Emma is 5ft 5 on top, I've got lots of proofs as well.
Kashfia said on 30/Jan/12
That girl is the same height as Emma Watson in her bare feet. That girl and Emma Watson are both the same height in their bare feet. Click Here
Kashfia said on 30/Jan/12
@M M Ok fine Emma Watson is 5'5" or 5'6" but Miley Cyrus is 5'10" in her bare feet. Miley Cyrus is 7 inches shorter than her 6'5" boyfriend Liam Hemsworth.
Kashfia said on 29/Jan/12
@J Emma Watson is a tall chick but she is not model tall.
M M said on 29/Jan/12
@J I slightly agree with u. Emma can be shorter than 5ft 5'. I mean she wore a black version of these platform heels Click Here and still not tall enough to go over 5ft 8ish Rupert Click Here
But she can be 5ft 5 since guys too wear 2-3inch shoe lifts inside their shoes.
J said on 29/Jan/12
5'2" to 5'4". Definitely less than 5'5" - even in 6" platform heels, she doesn't reach 5'8", what does that tell you?
M M said on 28/Jan/12
@Kashfia LOL! All of our comments are deleted. It looks like editor Rob doesn't like fighting. So I'll not fight but I suggest u to make your claim clear, once u say Emma is 5ft 8', then u say she's 5ft 10', then again and again u keep on changing the mark. I don't think u've measured all these celebrities with your bare hand!
Kashfia said on 27/Jan/12
@M M Emma Watson is not 5'10" in her bare feet. She is the same height as Taylor Momsen in her bare feet. But Miley Cyrus is 5'10" in her bare feet. Miley Cyrus is 7 inches shorter than her 6'5" boyfriend Liam Hemsworth.
j said on 27/Jan/12
It's odd, Sophie Sumner is 5'7.5" in real life (agencies always round to 5'9" or 5'10" regardless) and she TOWERS over Emma. Emma is easily less than 5'5", she's between 5'2" and 5'3" on a good morning. Tiny, very tiny.
susie said on 27/Jan/12
anyone claiming over 5'6" for emma is delusional. it's pretty obvious she's in the 5'3-5'4 range looking at pictures. maybe 5'5" or a shade over at the very most. but i doubt it. dan is around 5'4 as well
rip said on 8/Jul/09
In the recent world premiere of harry potter and the half blood prince, even with high heels, she looked slightly shorter than Rupert, and not that much taller than Dan.
So I would say:
Dan 5'5"
Emma 5'5"
Rupert 5'7.5"-5'8"
Josh said on 7/Jul/09
have you guys heard of heels? She wears 6 inch heels all the time, making her look around 6 ft.
Nat said on 5/Jul/09
Dan is closer to the camera in a lot of those pictures is why Emma looks taller than he does. =)
umad80 said on 4/Jul/09
Not really. Yes, there are a few, but for instance this one Dan actually looks taller: Click Here though with the right angle, they'd probably look the same height. On this one, Dan seems to be on a downward slope giving Emma the better angle: Click Here plus he has his head down. There are so many where you can actually argue why she looks taller. Closer to the camera, the position on the street, etc. This also explains why Rupert looks shorter in some photos as well. He's even at a worse disadvantage than Dan!
Jackie said on 30/Jun/09
Take a look at these new pics from the Deathly Hallows set, Click Here While I completely understand that ground, positioning, angles, etc. really change a picture, what I don't understand is how Emma looks taller than Dan in every single one of these pictures, it's so weird! I was thinking that, if they're both around 5'5", then they'd look around the same even when one's in front and back, but Emma literally always looks taller, take a look for yourself. It's so weird and she's wearing very flat shoes and Dan's wearing Converse-type as well, but they seem to have a good inch of sole on them. Also, check out how close in height Emma is to Rupert (who's wearing heeled clonkers)....when and how did she shoot up like this, she's almost 20 now, isn't she?! It's so weird.
mariiee said on 24/Jun/09
i think 5"5 is spot on
eric said on 24/Jun/09
lol Emma T is bending a whole lot and emma watson is wearing heels while emma T is wearing FLAT running shoes
Denise said on 20/Jun/09
You don't understood me. I think that Emma is 5'5.
umad80 said on 19/Jun/09
Oh please. Both times Emma T is bending so much that she's losing a LOT of height. Please. Stop. Now.
Anonymous said on 18/Jun/09
Emma with Emma Thompson (5'7.75)

Click Here

Click Here
MrsCool said on 13/Jun/09
umad80, I agree when you say she cant be taller than 5'5" so please people who keeps saying shes 5'6 just STOP! but many of my friends have seen her in premieres and they are like 5'3/4 and they all said she was basically same height...
umad80 said on 12/Jun/09
MrsCool, I've been and at the GoF premiere she was the height I am which is 5'5". "hey.", who has many different names, has been determined to make Emma 5'7" even though it's been proven time and time again that it isn't true. Just look at her rubbish pictures to prove it... Even if Kate Bosworth is 5'5", Emma is closer and would definitely get a few inches on her due to that. Sorry, but she failed to be taller than Matthew Broderick with heels, someone needs to give up this illusion of her being taller than 5'5". Heck, she could barely be taller than 5'5" Dustin Hoffman!
MrsCool said on 11/Jun/09
First of, there're doubts about Kate Bosworth height cause some say that she might even be 5'3 so... Second, I know a lot of people who already saw her and ALL of them said she was pretty tiny in real so I rather trust people who really saw her than a fake bio.
You guys should go to one of the HP premiere and see this by yourself.
hey. said on 11/Jun/09
If you look at HBC's back and then Emma's back, they have the same amount of bend, Emma's perhaps even a bit more as she's holding a wine bottle....jeez, I give up, if that photo does not prove that she's taller than Dan and thus taller than 5'5", I don't know what will! She towers over HBC even though she's wearing flats and HBC is wearing "heels"! Bye!
Anonymous said on 11/Jun/09
the photo with HBC is rubbish because Helena is carrying a baby, thus bending backwards
in the photo with Kate Bosworth, Emma is closer to the camera -- in other photos they look pretty similar in height Click Here
hey. said on 10/Jun/09
Whatever, I know that sand sinks, but it wouldn't make sense with Evanna and Emma. But here's proof that Emma is over 5'5"....with 5'5" Kate Bosworth (both wearing similar heels)Click Here and with 5'2" Helena Bonham Carter wearing some (strange) heels and Emma basically flatish shoes. Emma looks quite a bit taller despite the heel difference Click Here Here's a pic with Radcliffe and Carter to compare.
And I'm going to Stanford where there's something called financial aid.
umad80 said on 10/Jun/09
You're going to college and don't know that sand sinks?! Yes, believe it or not, when you walk on sand, you tend to sink and if someone walks on a part that is more stiff... I mean, c'mon. It really doesn't take a genius here. lol It's smushy sand... Heck Rob told me that Rupert's picture with one of the twins was inconclusive because of grass and that's harder than soft sand.
hey. said on 9/Jun/09
No, I don't so please fill me in on what I'm obviously missing, oh k? I don't see how it would affect Evanna and Emma that much....how's it going to be SO much different?
MrsCool said on 8/Jun/09
This girl is a JOKE!!! in her site she says shes 5'6?! WTF?! trust me this girl is barely 5'4... I dont know why do celebs always have to upgrade themselves! especially her, shes a very tiny girl. Period.
mahsa said on 7/Jun/09
She is about 161 .she doesnt look 165.I think it is not right
Sarah said on 4/Jun/09
I saw her in a club in London and she looked about 5'4. She looked small.
umad80 said on 29/May/09
You don't walk on much sand, do you? I've also pointed out several times that Dan shrinks at night, and there is considerable evidence to this. I've also pointed out, several times, that Emma was not even close to 5'8" at the ToD premiere. I don't have a thing against Emma. I think she's lovely... but it's crazy to think she's anything more than 5'5" with all the mounting evidence. At least with Rupert people have said again and again that he's around 5'9". lol

Believe me, I could care less as to where you're going to college at. It's like an IQ test... it's just there to make you feel good. Today's college is who is the riches and who is the poorest - as those are the ones who can actually attend!
hey. said on 27/May/09
Well, I assume her feet are attache to her legs...I'm not saying it was a perfect picture, but looking at the photos as a set, it's pretty easy to see that Emma has this Kaya girl by a considerable amount. And, your heels comment, look at the other photos, you'll see that they are "about" the same height. Oh, please, you are seriously saying that Evanna is heavier than Emma? That's ridiculous, the amount they sink in really isn't going to affect the comparison that much. Jeez. And Dan's wearing Converse type things and Emma's wearing Uggs...the last picture wasn't so much for Dan and Emma, more for Dan and Evanna, but it was easy to point out that that girl in the black jacket was Emma and she clearly looked taller than both Evanna and Dan. Also, check out HBP footage, E is taller than D.
And, yeah, I know, how sad we've become, I've started answering the person who still can't get over the fact that Rupert is 5'7.75". And I don't know what you've got against Emma....I mean, I still remember you saying that Dan's shoes were at least the same height as Emma's heels...if that were true, you should be calling Emma 5'8" minimum! She towered over that SoB in those heels, I don't get how you're saying she's his same height again.

Oh, and umad, guess where I'm going to college next year...you'll be amazingly surprised (at least from what I gather you think of me).
umad80 said on 26/May/09
'hey' you're really just having fun now, aren't you? lol I mean the first one they are walking. Oh, and let me use your line, "You can't see Emma's feet." For all we know, she's wearing larger heels than the other girl. The beach one... it is a beach and the sand will make one look shorter if they've sunk into it. Plus Emma definitely has boots on but I have no idea about Dan...
This is what happens when I'm bored... I start answering the same person with multiple names who still can't get over that Emma is not more than 5'5".
Med said on 24/May/09
Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe is enjoying his run in Broadway play Equus - because he can go unrecognised in the busy New York streets.
The actor, 19, is currently living in the U.S. while starring in the live stage show, and he insists the Big Apple provides welcome relief to his native U.K., where he is constantly spotted by fans.
And Radcliffe is convinced it is his diminutive height - he is 1.6 metres (5 foot, 5 inches) - that keeps him from being noticed.
He tells the New York Post, "The other day, I walked through Battery Park City up around Wall Street for about two hours, and I wasn't stopped once. I'm so short, no one notices me."

Well as we know 1.6m is actually 5'3", not 5'5". But anyway he hasn't grown.
hey. said on 23/May/09
Click Here
Kaya Scodelario (from Skins) is listed as 5'6" by a modeling agency and in that pic, Emma's clearly taller. And they're both wearing similar heels. And just click on another JJJ pic if you don't think that one good enough (uamd). :D. Oh, and check this out, Click Here Granted it's an odd angle, Emma is WAY taller than Evanna who looks to be close to Dan's height Click Here And I think that's Emma in the black jacket with jeans....and, wow, even though the angle is in her disadvantage, she still looks slightly taller than Dan, meaning if you tilt it slightly she looks considerably taller. :/

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.