My roster

Enter your player tag and the site hides everything you cannot play anyway: brawlers you are missing, and those below power 9 — below 11 from Mythic upwards. The tag goes to the official API once and then stays in your browser. It is neither stored nor logged here, and there is no account.

You can find your tag in the game, under your name in your profile.

← Overview

Where the numbers come from

Everything on this site comes from the official Brawl Stars API — no estimates, no third-party data sets. What follows tells you how far the collection reaches and where it stops.

14,334,169Ranked battles
30Maps
1,681,362Players read
0Players at Pro tier
86,005,014rows analysed

How the data is collected

For each player the crawler fetches their battle log — the last 25 battles or so. Each of those battles names up to nine further player tags, and those go into the queue. So the collection grows out of itself, starting from the leaderboards of the top players.

18,959,320Players known
17,277,958of those never read
3,967,500play ranked
1 : 11read : known
1Rosters in memory
1Histories in memory

That is the flip side of the snowball method: in the last pass 2,000 players read brought in 66,840 new tags, about 33 each. The queue therefore grows faster than it can be emptied — catching up is impossible, and that is not the point either. What matters is not how many players get read, but which ones. So the selection takes players who play ranked at all first, and among those the most active: right now the queue holds 4.24 million without a single ranked battle — and only 80,739 with eleven or more.

How far back the numbers go

Ranked battles per day, since the start of the season being analysed. The early days are thin — the collection was only just starting up, and statements about them carry correspondingly little.

27.07.
28.07.
29.07.
30.07.
31.07.
01.08.
02.08.
03.08.
04.08.
05.08.
06.08.
07.08.
08.08.
09.08.
10.08.
11.08.
12.08.
13.08.
14.08.
15.08.
16.08.
17.08.
18.08.
19.08.
20.08.
21.08.

Last crawled: 8/21/26, 9:56 PM. Aggregates last computed: 8/21/26, 9:54 PM.

Is the draft prediction right?

The draft helper predicts an edge for a line-up. Whether that number holds up is testable — against 400,000 real battles whose outcome is known. Each dot is a group of battles with a similar prediction; horizontally what the helper said, vertically how often that side actually won.

Predicted -147.0 points → measured 19.3% from 10,044 observationsPredicted -115.1 points → measured 24.9% from 10,284 observationsPredicted -101.7 points → measured 27.7% from 10,178 observationsPredicted -92.6 points → measured 29.9% from 10,363 observationsPredicted -85.4 points → measured 30.7% from 10,417 observationsPredicted -79.5 points → measured 31.6% from 10,496 observationsPredicted -74.2 points → measured 33.4% from 10,833 observationsPredicted -69.5 points → measured 34.9% from 11,218 observationsPredicted -65.2 points → measured 35.1% from 11,026 observationsPredicted -61.5 points → measured 36.4% from 10,469 observationsPredicted -58.0 points → measured 36.9% from 11,097 observationsPredicted -54.7 points → measured 37.3% from 10,443 observationsPredicted -51.7 points → measured 37.6% from 10,897 observationsPredicted -48.7 points → measured 38.6% from 11,531 observationsPredicted -46.0 points → measured 40.6% from 10,178 observationsPredicted -43.5 points → measured 40.2% from 10,485 observationsPredicted -41.0 points → measured 41.4% from 11,101 observationsPredicted -38.5 points → measured 40.8% from 11,373 observationsPredicted -36.0 points → measured 41.7% from 11,774 observationsPredicted -33.5 points → measured 42.7% from 12,220 observationsPredicted -31.3 points → measured 44.3% from 10,158 observationsPredicted -29.2 points → measured 43.0% from 10,385 observationsPredicted -27.2 points → measured 43.9% from 10,263 observationsPredicted -25.2 points → measured 44.8% from 10,864 observationsPredicted -23.3 points → measured 44.0% from 10,836 observationsPredicted -21.2 points → measured 45.5% from 11,162 observationsPredicted -19.3 points → measured 44.9% from 11,241 observationsPredicted -17.2 points → measured 46.0% from 11,541 observationsPredicted -15.2 points → measured 46.4% from 11,728 observationsPredicted -13.2 points → measured 46.4% from 11,816 observationsPredicted -11.2 points → measured 47.2% from 11,958 observationsPredicted -9.3 points → measured 47.9% from 11,857 observationsPredicted -7.3 points → measured 48.1% from 11,924 observationsPredicted -5.3 points → measured 48.9% from 12,282 observationsPredicted -3.3 points → measured 49.3% from 11,946 observationsPredicted -1.3 points → measured 49.4% from 12,066 observationsPredicted 0.7 points → measured 50.3% from 12,092 observationsPredicted 2.8 points → measured 50.7% from 11,998 observationsPredicted 4.8 points → measured 50.8% from 12,207 observationsPredicted 6.7 points → measured 52.2% from 12,003 observationsPredicted 8.7 points → measured 51.6% from 11,853 observationsPredicted 10.7 points → measured 52.7% from 12,049 observationsPredicted 12.8 points → measured 53.3% from 11,799 observationsPredicted 14.7 points → measured 53.6% from 11,698 observationsPredicted 16.7 points → measured 54.0% from 11,733 observationsPredicted 18.8 points → measured 55.1% from 11,192 observationsPredicted 20.7 points → measured 54.6% from 11,290 observationsPredicted 22.7 points → measured 55.7% from 10,766 observationsPredicted 24.7 points → measured 55.3% from 10,927 observationsPredicted 26.7 points → measured 55.9% from 10,478 observationsPredicted 28.8 points → measured 56.8% from 10,333 observationsPredicted 30.7 points → measured 56.3% from 10,144 observationsPredicted 33.0 points → measured 56.9% from 12,360 observationsPredicted 35.5 points → measured 57.8% from 11,834 observationsPredicted 38.0 points → measured 58.8% from 11,551 observationsPredicted 40.5 points → measured 59.0% from 11,137 observationsPredicted 43.0 points → measured 59.5% from 10,535 observationsPredicted 45.5 points → measured 59.5% from 10,278 observationsPredicted 48.2 points → measured 60.9% from 11,644 observationsPredicted 51.2 points → measured 62.4% from 11,018 observationsPredicted 54.2 points → measured 62.5% from 10,525 observationsPredicted 57.5 points → measured 63.2% from 11,257 observationsPredicted 61.0 points → measured 63.4% from 10,538 observationsPredicted 64.7 points → measured 64.9% from 11,175 observationsPredicted 68.7 points → measured 64.4% from 10,148 observationsPredicted 72.9 points → measured 66.7% from 10,102 observationsPredicted 78.0 points → measured 68.1% from 10,862 observationsPredicted 83.7 points → measured 68.9% from 10,125 observationsPredicted 90.4 points → measured 69.9% from 10,440 observationsPredicted 98.7 points → measured 71.5% from 10,139 observationsPredicted 110.4 points → measured 74.3% from 10,158 observationsPredicted 141.0 points → measured 79.5% from 13,158 observations
worse draft50 %better draft

The direction is right — the dots rise from bottom left to top right, across the whole range, without outliers. So the draft really does say something about the outcome.

The scale was wrong, and that is the real result: of one accumulated prediction point, only 22% actually comes through. That is not a bug but expected — the nine duels and six pairings of a line-up partly explain the same thing and get counted several times when added up. The raw sum reaches past 130 points; read as a win rate that would be nonsense. So the win chance in the draft helper is calibrated with this factor, not the raw sum. What that means for the numbers in the draft has a page of its own.

What the test cannot do. The aggregates are built from the same battles that are being checked here — a clean approach would use a time cut, but the duel and pairing tables carry no day column. The resulting error is small and boundable: a duel cell contains several thousand pairings, a single battle contributes about a thousandth and cannot predict itself. What remains is a slight self-confirmation — the measured scale is more likely too generous than too strict. That is enough for “direction and order of magnitude are right”; not as proof of the last decimal place.

Calibration runs across all rank tiers together. Measured against 400 identical line-ups, the scale differs between “all ranks”, Mythic and Legendary by less than 6% (34.5 / 35.1 / 36.4 points mean distance) — so the single factor holds across the tiers. Calibrating per tier would be more precise, but costs a separate run for each one.

What is not in here

Deliberately left out

Friendly games never count — nobody plays them seriously. Showdown is missing from the ranked analysis because ranked does not exist in that mode. In ranked the current season counts; older battles sit under different balance conditions and would water the picture down. The previous season stays stored all the same and stands in for individual rows while the new season is still too thin for them — those rows are marked "prev. season". Trophies have no such cut: there a rolling window of 28 days counts, because the meta shifts more slowly and the rotation has far too many maps to start from zero.

Not provided by the API

What someone played with — star power, gadget, gear, hypercharge — appears in no battle log entry. Per player the API gives only tag, name and brawler. So there can be no analysis of those here, not even an estimated one.

The raw data is cleaned up after processing: individual battle participations after a day, battle IDs after two weeks. The analysed numbers are untouched by this — they live in the aggregates, not in the raw data. What can no longer be recomputed from them is a retroactively changed analysis across the whole period.