The engine room
Most sites show you one model and ask you to trust it. We run several, put them through an identical exam, and show you the marks — including the ones we would rather not publish. Pick whichever you want to follow.
This leaderboard is the Premier League's. The other four leagues each run a single engine rather than a field of challengers, so there is nothing to rank — their held-out record, their calibration and their week-by-week ledger are on the record, one league at a time.
Best ranked-probability score over the last 8 weeks of matches (since 2026-03-29). This changes as form changes — which is rather the point of running more than one model. The full week-by-week record is on the weekly record.
Every model is fitted on 2016–2020 only, then run forward week by week across 2021–2025 without ever seeing those seasons during tuning. Same data, same refit schedule, same metrics — the only thing that differs is the algorithm.
Closing market
benchmark — not selectableNot ours: the betting market's closing prices, the strongest public predictor in football. The bar every engine is judged against.
xGB Core
The house engine. Reads the quality of every chance a side creates and concedes — not just results — adjusted for opponent and venue, weighted toward now. The champion until another engine beats it where it counts.
| Gameweek | n | RPS | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| GW1 | 10 | 0.2292 | 70.0% |
| GW2 | 10 | 0.1895 | 60.0% |
| GW3 | 10 | 0.1391 | 30.0% |
| GW4 | 10 | 0.2411 | 30.0% |
| GW5 | 10 | 0.2383 | 40.0% |
Draws: caught 0 of the 16 that actually happened.
Every tier pairing seen so far (6 of 6)
Tiers from last season's final table (2025/26). A promoted club with no row in that table counts as a relegation contender here.
| Matchup | n | Called | RPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-table vs Mid-table | 8 | 5/8 | 0.1993 |
| Mid-table vs Relegation contenders | 12 | 6/12 | 0.2236 |
| Mid-table vs Top 6 | 12 | 4/12 | 0.1596 |
| Relegation contenders vs Relegation contenders | 4 | 0/4 | 0.3813 |
| Relegation contenders vs Top 6 | 10 | 5/10 | 0.1856 |
| Top 6 vs Top 6 | 4 | 3/4 | 0.1999 |
xGB Consensus
The engines vote. Disagreement between them is information, and the vote is settled before the season starts — never adjusted in hindsight.
Against the reigning champion engine over the same 1900 matches: worse by 0.00006 RPS (p = 0.8549) — inside noise, so we do not claim a difference.
| Gameweek | n | RPS | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| GW1↺ reconstructed | 10 | 0.2375 | 70.0% |
| GW2↺ reconstructed | 10 | 0.1842 | 60.0% |
| GW3 | 10 | 0.1377 | 30.0% |
| GW4 | 10 | 0.2288 | 40.0% |
| GW5 | 10 | 0.2374 | 40.0% |
Draws: caught 0 of the 16 that actually happened.
Every tier pairing seen so far (6 of 6)
Tiers from last season's final table (2025/26). A promoted club with no row in that table counts as a relegation contender here.
| Matchup | n | Called | RPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-table vs Mid-table | 8 | 5/8 | 0.2043 |
| Mid-table vs Relegation contenders | 12 | 7/12 | 0.2152 |
| Mid-table vs Top 6 | 12 | 4/12 | 0.1614 |
| Relegation contenders vs Relegation contenders | 4 | 0/4 | 0.3709 |
| Relegation contenders vs Top 6 | 10 | 5/10 | 0.1842 |
| Top 6 vs Top 6 | 4 | 3/4 | 0.1946 |
Includes 20 reconstructed calls above — backfilled, not recorded live.
xGB Current
Ratings that move with every match instead of being rebuilt from a window. The quickest engine in the room to accept that a side has changed, and the least attached to what they used to be.
Against the reigning champion engine over the same 1900 matches: worse by 0.00068 RPS (p = 0.2622) — inside noise, so we do not claim a difference.
| Gameweek | n | RPS | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| GW1↺ reconstructed | 10 | 0.2467 | 70.0% |
| GW2↺ reconstructed | 9 | 0.1883 | 44.4% |
| GW2 | 1 | 0.0967 | 100.0% |
| GW3 | 10 | 0.1371 | 30.0% |
| GW4 | 10 | 0.2188 | 40.0% |
| GW5 | 10 | 0.2372 | 50.0% |
Draws: caught 0 of the 16 that actually happened.
Every tier pairing seen so far (6 of 6)
Tiers from last season's final table (2025/26). A promoted club with no row in that table counts as a relegation contender here.
| Matchup | n | Called | RPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-table vs Mid-table | 8 | 4/8 | 0.2091 |
| Mid-table vs Relegation contenders | 12 | 7/12 | 0.2089 |
| Mid-table vs Top 6 | 12 | 4/12 | 0.1636 |
| Relegation contenders vs Relegation contenders | 4 | 0/4 | 0.3617 |
| Relegation contenders vs Top 6 | 10 | 6/10 | 0.1843 |
| Top 6 vs Top 6 | 4 | 3/4 | 0.1890 |
Includes 19 reconstructed calls above — backfilled, not recorded live.
xGB Momentum
Short memory on purpose: what have you done lately? Streaks and slumps count for more here than anywhere else in the room.
Against the reigning champion engine over the same 1900 matches: worse by 0.00223 RPS (p = 0.0316).
| Gameweek | n | RPS | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| GW1↺ reconstructed | 10 | 0.2342 | 50.0% |
| GW2↺ reconstructed | 9 | 0.2588 | 44.4% |
| GW2 | 1 | 0.2645 | 0.0% |
| GW3 | 10 | 0.1905 | 20.0% |
| GW4 | 10 | 0.2805 | 20.0% |
| GW5 | 10 | 0.2465 | 50.0% |
Draws: caught 0 of the 16 that actually happened.
Every tier pairing seen so far (6 of 6)
Tiers from last season's final table (2025/26). A promoted club with no row in that table counts as a relegation contender here.
| Matchup | n | Called | RPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-table vs Mid-table | 8 | 4/8 | 0.2187 |
| Mid-table vs Relegation contenders | 12 | 4/12 | 0.2528 |
| Mid-table vs Top 6 | 12 | 5/12 | 0.1673 |
| Relegation contenders vs Relegation contenders | 4 | 0/4 | 0.4651 |
| Relegation contenders vs Top 6 | 10 | 4/10 | 0.2136 |
| Top 6 vs Top 6 | 4 | 1/4 | 0.3311 |
Includes 19 reconstructed calls above — backfilled, not recorded live.
xGB Ladder
A long-memory strength ladder: every result moves both clubs up or down, big upsets move them further. Slow to convince, hard to fool.
Against the reigning champion engine over the same 1900 matches: worse by 0.00251 RPS (p = 0.0268).
| Gameweek | n | RPS | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| GW1↺ reconstructed | 10 | 0.1899 | 60.0% |
| GW2 | 1 | 0.1189 | 100.0% |
| GW2↺ reconstructed | 9 | 0.2182 | 44.4% |
| GW3 | 10 | 0.1519 | 40.0% |
| GW4 | 10 | 0.2590 | 30.0% |
| GW5 | 10 | 0.2227 | 40.0% |
Draws: caught 0 of the 16 that actually happened.
Every tier pairing seen so far (6 of 6)
Tiers from last season's final table (2025/26). A promoted club with no row in that table counts as a relegation contender here.
| Matchup | n | Called | RPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-table vs Mid-table | 8 | 4/8 | 0.2069 |
| Mid-table vs Relegation contenders | 12 | 6/12 | 0.2055 |
| Mid-table vs Top 6 | 12 | 4/12 | 0.1755 |
| Relegation contenders vs Relegation contenders | 4 | 0/4 | 0.3702 |
| Relegation contenders vs Top 6 | 10 | 5/10 | 0.1894 |
| Top 6 vs Top 6 | 4 | 3/4 | 0.1790 |
Includes 19 reconstructed calls above — backfilled, not recorded live.
xGB Pattern
Learns the result distribution straight from dozens of form and context signals instead of modelling goals first. The most data-hungry engine in the room, and so far the least convincing.
Against the reigning champion engine over the same 1900 matches: worse by 0.00590 RPS (p = 0.0001).
| Gameweek | n | RPS | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| GW1↺ reconstructed | 10 | 0.2867 | 30.0% |
| GW2 | 1 | 0.2394 | 0.0% |
| GW2↺ reconstructed | 9 | 0.2303 | 33.3% |
| GW3 | 10 | 0.1348 | 50.0% |
| GW4 | 10 | 0.2212 | 20.0% |
| GW5 | 10 | 0.2451 | 30.0% |
Draws: caught 1 of the 16 that actually happened (called 7 in total, including wrong calls).
Every tier pairing seen so far (6 of 6)
Tiers from last season's final table (2025/26). A promoted club with no row in that table counts as a relegation contender here.
| Matchup | n | Called | RPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-table vs Mid-table | 8 | 1/8 | 0.2951 |
| Mid-table vs Relegation contenders | 12 | 4/12 | 0.2192 |
| Mid-table vs Top 6 | 12 | 5/12 | 0.1329 |
| Relegation contenders vs Relegation contenders | 4 | 0/4 | 0.3534 |
| Relegation contenders vs Top 6 | 10 | 5/10 | 0.1995 |
| Top 6 vs Top 6 | 4 | 1/4 | 0.2991 |
Includes 19 reconstructed calls above — backfilled, not recorded live.
Teams are not players
The model that best picks match outcomes is not automatically the one you want for “will he score?”. A match forecast depends on the difference between two sides; a player’s chance of scoring depends on the level of his own team’s expected goals. A model can get the difference right while running high or low on the level, and the match leaderboard would never show it. So we grade each model on players too, over 9,008 appearances.
| Model | Goal Brier | Bias | Top-10 board | Separation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| xGB Core | 0.07503 | -0.98% | 27.5% | 2.23× |
| xGB Momentum | 0.07547 | -0.84% | 28.9% | 2.39× |
| xGB Ladder | Cannot answer this question — it rates teams, not scorelines, so it has no expected-goals number to hand a player model. We leave the row empty rather than invent one. | |||
Separation is how much more often the model’s top-ten board returns a goal or assist than everyone else — the number that actually matters when you are picking a captain. The two are close, and they disagree about which is best: the champion is better calibrated, while rolling form separates its top picks more sharply. Graded only on players who actually appeared — the projection is conditional on playing, and we do not claim to know the teamsheet.
Tuned on 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 · evaluated on 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 · generated 2026-08-21