Clubs Compare

Leeds vs Manchester City

Real strength. Different football profiles.

Leeds

Premier League · 2026-2027

Rating as of 20 Oct 2026
Power73.2

Manchester City

Premier League · 2026-2027

Rating as of 20 Oct 2026
Power90.7
The football profile

Club DNA

LeedsManchester City

Strength Profile · Current

Fixed 0–100 ratings. Power is the Elo baseline; Attack and Defence use a common reference opponent. Form is opponent-adjusted.

Strength profile radarCommon axes run from zero at the centre to 100 at the edge. Exact values appear alongside. A missing metric leaves the shape incomplete. 255075100 Power Attack Defence Form Consistency Squad Availability Leeds · Power 73.2 ptsLeeds · Attack 68.5 ptsLeeds · Defence 76.8 ptsLeeds · Form 63.7 ptsLeeds · Consistency 64.6 ptsLeeds · Squad Availability 92.9 % Manchester City · Power 90.7 ptsManchester City · Attack 91.7 ptsManchester City · Defence 81.7 ptsManchester City · Form 92.5 ptsManchester City · Consistency 61.7 ptsManchester City · Squad Availability 100.0 % Strength profile radarCommon axes run from zero at the centre to 100 at the edge. Exact values appear alongside. A missing metric leaves the shape incomplete. 255075100 Power Attack Defence Form Consistency SquadAvailability Leeds · Power 73.2 ptsLeeds · Attack 68.5 ptsLeeds · Defence 76.8 ptsLeeds · Form 63.7 ptsLeeds · Consistency 64.6 ptsLeeds · Squad Availability 92.9 % Manchester City · Power 90.7 ptsManchester City · Attack 91.7 ptsManchester City · Defence 81.7 ptsManchester City · Form 92.5 ptsManchester City · Consistency 61.7 ptsManchester City · Squad Availability 100.0 %
Ratings · 0–100 · Availability is a percentage

Strength comparison

Point gaps · Availability in percentage points

73.2Power90.7
Manchester City +17.5 pts
68.5Attack91.7
Manchester City +23.2 pts
76.8Defence81.7
Manchester City +4.9 pts
63.7Form92.5
Manchester City +28.8 pts
64.6Consistency61.7
Leeds +2.9 pts
92.9%Squad Availability100.0%
Manchester City +7.1 pp

Consistency measures variation in points minus LOAD90 expected points, centred on the club’s average gap. Higher means less variation, not better results. Squad Availability is the percentage of model-weighted squad available for the last completed match, using its saved pre-match snapshot. It does not predict readiness for the next match. Missing historical data stays unavailable.

What separates them

The Difference

  • Manchester City shows better recent form.
  • Manchester City has the stronger attacking profile.
  • Manchester City has the higher Power rating.
  • Manchester City had more of its weighted squad available for its last completed match.
Descriptive rating gaps, not a match forecast. Small gaps are left out; missing ratings are not compared.

Leeds · Form 5/5 · Consistency 20/20 covered matches · 2 pre-match / 18 historical forecast backfills · Availability · last completed match 18 Oct 2026

Manchester City · Form 5/5 · Consistency 19/20 covered matches · 3 pre-match / 16 historical forecast backfills · Availability · last completed match 17 Oct 2026

How Consistency works

For each match, gap = points earned − LOAD90 expected points. Consistency = 100 × (1 − SD(gaps) / 3), with SD calculated around the window’s mean gap. The endpoints come from the mathematical bounds of point gaps; this is not a fitted percentile or a forecast factor. A constant positive or negative gap can be consistent.

Current uses the latest 20 completed tracked matches within one year. At least 15 usable forecasts and 75% coverage are required. A 15–19-match score is provisional; comparative Consistency insights require 20 each. Historical backfills are reconstructed expectations, not forecasts archived before kickoff. Result randomness and changes in model calibration can affect the score.

Leeds · Current gap SD 1.06 points · mean gap 0.08 · Full window

Manchester City · Current gap SD 1.15 points · mean gap 0.33 · Provisional sample

Playing Style · Current

Observed profile · last 10 matches before each club’s reference fixture. Native units and coverage are shown below.

Playing style radarEach axis has its own labelled native range, shared by both clubs and both periods. Grid rings mark quarters of those ranges. Exact values appear alongside; missing data leaves the shape incomplete. Possession 0–100 % Pass accuracy 0–100 % Shots in the box 0–100 % On target share 0–100 % Shot Frequency 0–6 shots/100 passes Corner Pressure 0–12 corners/90 Leeds · Possession 46.3 %Leeds · Pass accuracy 77.5 %Leeds · Shots in the box 61.6 %Leeds · On target share 31.3 %Leeds · Shot Frequency 3.1 shots/100 passesLeeds · Corner Pressure 4.1 corners/90 Manchester City · Possession 62.2 %Manchester City · Pass accuracy 89.3 %Manchester City · Shots in the box 68.8 %Manchester City · On target share 35.8 %Manchester City · Shot Frequency 2.7 shots/100 passesManchester City · Corner Pressure 6.4 corners/90 Playing style radarEach axis has its own labelled native range, shared by both clubs and both periods. Grid rings mark quarters of those ranges. Exact values appear alongside; missing data leaves the shape incomplete. Possession 0–100 % Passaccuracy 0–100 % Shots inthe box 0–100 % On targetshare 0–100 % ShotFrequency 0–6 shots/100 passes CornerPressure 0–12 corners/90 Leeds · Possession 46.3 %Leeds · Pass accuracy 77.5 %Leeds · Shots in the box 61.6 %Leeds · On target share 31.3 %Leeds · Shot Frequency 3.1 shots/100 passesLeeds · Corner Pressure 4.1 corners/90 Manchester City · Possession 62.2 %Manchester City · Pass accuracy 89.3 %Manchester City · Shots in the box 68.8 %Manchester City · On target share 35.8 %Manchester City · Shot Frequency 2.7 shots/100 passesManchester City · Corner Pressure 6.4 corners/90
Native units · axis ranges shown · larger is not better

How they play

Differences in each metric’s native units

46.3%Possession62.2%
Manchester City +15.9 pp
77.5%Pass accuracy89.3%
Manchester City +11.8 pp
61.6%Shots in the box68.8%
Manchester City +7.2 pp
31.3%On target share35.8%
Manchester City +4.5 pp
3.1Shot Frequency2.7
Leeds +0.3 shots/100 passes
4.1Corner Pressure6.4
Manchester City +2.3 corners/90

Shot Frequency = shots per 100 passes on the same covered matches: how quickly passing sequences turn into attempts. Corner Pressure = corners per completed 90-minute game. These describe attacking tendencies, not strength; extra time and custom-length games are excluded.

These are observed profiles. League and schedule differences can affect them. The radar uses native axis ranges shared by both clubs and both periods; a larger shape does not imply superiority.

Leeds · Window 10 matches · before 25 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 10/10 · Corner Pressure 10/10 covered regulation matches. Per-metric coverage of the four percentage shares is unavailable.

Manchester City · Window 10 matches · before 24 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 10/10 · Corner Pressure 10/10 covered regulation matches. Per-metric coverage of the four percentage shares is unavailable.

Strength Profile · Season Average

Match-sampled averages of available ratings this season, across tracked competitions. These are not time-weighted averages or a measure of consistency.

Strength profile radarCommon axes run from zero at the centre to 100 at the edge. Exact values appear alongside. A missing metric leaves the shape incomplete. 255075100 Power Attack Defence Form Consistency Squad Availability Leeds · Power 72.7 ptsLeeds · Form 74.1 ptsLeeds · Consistency 63.8 pts Manchester City · Power 90.3 ptsManchester City · Attack 90.4 ptsManchester City · Defence 89.1 ptsManchester City · Form 93.7 ptsManchester City · Consistency 62.5 ptsManchester City · Squad Availability 96.9 % Strength profile radarCommon axes run from zero at the centre to 100 at the edge. Exact values appear alongside. A missing metric leaves the shape incomplete. 255075100 Power Attack Defence Form Consistency SquadAvailability Leeds · Power 72.7 ptsLeeds · Form 74.1 ptsLeeds · Consistency 63.8 pts Manchester City · Power 90.3 ptsManchester City · Attack 90.4 ptsManchester City · Defence 89.1 ptsManchester City · Form 93.7 ptsManchester City · Consistency 62.5 ptsManchester City · Squad Availability 96.9 %
Ratings · 0–100 · Availability is a percentage

Strength comparison

Point gaps · Availability in percentage points

72.7Power90.3
Manchester City +17.6 pts
—Attack90.4
Shared data unavailable
—Defence89.1
Shared data unavailable
74.1Form93.7
Manchester City +19.6 pts
63.8Consistency62.5
Leeds +1.3 pts
—Squad Availability96.9%
Shared data unavailable

Consistency measures variation in points minus LOAD90 expected points, centred on the club’s average gap. Higher means less variation, not better results. Squad Availability is the percentage of model-weighted squad available for the last completed match, using its saved pre-match snapshot. It does not predict readiness for the next match. Missing historical data stays unavailable.

What separates them

The Difference

  • Manchester City has the higher average Form value.
  • Manchester City has the higher average Power value.
Descriptive rating gaps, not a match forecast. Small gaps are left out; missing ratings are not compared.

Leeds · Power 7 · Attack 2 · Defence 2 · Form 4 · Consistency 7 · Squad Availability 2 · 2 pre-match / 5 historical Elo backfills. Minimum 3 observations per average. Consistency averages eligible rolling windows, which overlap; availability uses genuine pre-match snapshots only. Historical Form is reconstructed using the current calibration.

Manchester City · Power 8 · Attack 3 · Defence 3 · Form 5 · Consistency 8 · Squad Availability 3 · 3 pre-match / 5 historical Elo backfills. Minimum 3 observations per average. Consistency averages eligible rolling windows, which overlap; availability uses genuine pre-match snapshots only. Historical Form is reconstructed using the current calibration.

How Consistency works

For each match, gap = points earned − LOAD90 expected points. Consistency = 100 × (1 − SD(gaps) / 3), with SD calculated around the window’s mean gap. The endpoints come from the mathematical bounds of point gaps; this is not a fitted percentile or a forecast factor. A constant positive or negative gap can be consistent.

Current uses the latest 20 completed tracked matches within one year. At least 15 usable forecasts and 75% coverage are required. A 15–19-match score is provisional; comparative Consistency insights require 20 each. Historical backfills are reconstructed expectations, not forecasts archived before kickoff. Result randomness and changes in model calibration can affect the score.

Leeds · Current gap SD 1.06 points · mean gap 0.08 · Full window

Manchester City · Current gap SD 1.15 points · mean gap 0.33 · Provisional sample

Playing Style · Season Average

Observed profile · league season before each club’s reference fixture. Native units and coverage are shown below.

Playing style radarEach axis has its own labelled native range, shared by both clubs and both periods. Grid rings mark quarters of those ranges. Exact values appear alongside; missing data leaves the shape incomplete. Possession 0–100 % Pass accuracy 0–100 % Shots in the box 0–100 % On target share 0–100 % Shot Frequency 0–6 shots/100 passes Corner Pressure 0–12 corners/90 Leeds · Possession 46.9 %Leeds · Pass accuracy 78.4 %Leeds · Shots in the box 64.6 %Leeds · On target share 33.3 %Leeds · Shot Frequency 3.1 shots/100 passesLeeds · Corner Pressure 4.0 corners/90 Manchester City · Possession 64.4 %Manchester City · Pass accuracy 89.3 %Manchester City · Shots in the box 70.0 %Manchester City · On target share 36.3 %Manchester City · Shot Frequency 2.3 shots/100 passesManchester City · Corner Pressure 5.6 corners/90 Playing style radarEach axis has its own labelled native range, shared by both clubs and both periods. Grid rings mark quarters of those ranges. Exact values appear alongside; missing data leaves the shape incomplete. Possession 0–100 % Passaccuracy 0–100 % Shots inthe box 0–100 % On targetshare 0–100 % ShotFrequency 0–6 shots/100 passes CornerPressure 0–12 corners/90 Leeds · Possession 46.9 %Leeds · Pass accuracy 78.4 %Leeds · Shots in the box 64.6 %Leeds · On target share 33.3 %Leeds · Shot Frequency 3.1 shots/100 passesLeeds · Corner Pressure 4.0 corners/90 Manchester City · Possession 64.4 %Manchester City · Pass accuracy 89.3 %Manchester City · Shots in the box 70.0 %Manchester City · On target share 36.3 %Manchester City · Shot Frequency 2.3 shots/100 passesManchester City · Corner Pressure 5.6 corners/90
Native units · axis ranges shown · larger is not better

How they play

Differences in each metric’s native units

46.9%Possession64.4%
Manchester City +17.6 pp
78.4%Pass accuracy89.3%
Manchester City +10.9 pp
64.6%Shots in the box70.0%
Manchester City +5.4 pp
33.3%On target share36.3%
Manchester City +3.0 pp
3.1Shot Frequency2.3
Leeds +0.8 shots/100 passes
4.0Corner Pressure5.6
Manchester City +1.6 corners/90

Shot Frequency = shots per 100 passes on the same covered matches: how quickly passing sequences turn into attempts. Corner Pressure = corners per completed 90-minute game. These describe attacking tendencies, not strength; extra time and custom-length games are excluded.

These are observed profiles. League and schedule differences can affect them. The radar uses native axis ranges shared by both clubs and both periods; a larger shape does not imply superiority.

Leeds · Window 7 matches · before 25 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 7/7 · Corner Pressure 7/7 covered regulation matches. Per-metric coverage of the four percentage shares is unavailable.

Manchester City · Window 7 matches · before 24 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 7/7 · Corner Pressure 7/7 covered regulation matches. Per-metric coverage of the four percentage shares is unavailable.

The season so far

Historical Trend

Power · 0–100

Base Power at recorded match dates. Solid lines join saved pre-match ratings; dashed segments include historical Elo backfills. The same fixed scale is used for both clubs.

Season Power historyAvailable pre-match Power observations and historical Elo backfills. Lines connect observations, not daily measurements. Exact dates and values are available in the table below. 0255075100 Leeds · 2026-08-22 14:00:00 UTC · 70.4 · backfill Leeds · 2026-08-30 13:00:00 UTC · 72.3 · backfill Leeds · 2026-09-05 14:00:00 UTC · 72 · backfill Leeds · 2026-09-14 19:00:00 UTC · 72.5 · backfill Leeds · 2026-09-20 13:00:00 UTC · 74.3 · backfill Leeds · 2026-10-10 11:30:00 UTC · 73.7 · pre Leeds · 2026-10-18 13:00:00 UTC · 73.4 · pre Manchester City · 2026-08-23 13:00:00 UTC · 89 · backfill Manchester City · 2026-08-28 19:00:00 UTC · 89.3 · backfill Manchester City · 2026-09-05 14:00:00 UTC · 90 · backfill Manchester City · 2026-09-13 15:30:00 UTC · 90.1 · backfill Manchester City · 2026-09-20 13:00:00 UTC · 90.7 · backfill Manchester City · 2026-10-11 15:30:00 UTC · 90.8 · pre Manchester City · 2026-10-14 19:00:00 UTC · 91.7 · pre Manchester City · 2026-10-17 14:00:00 UTC · 90.6 · pre 22 Aug 202618 Oct 2026
LeedsManchester City
View history data and coverage
ClubDate (UTC)PowerSource
Leeds2026-08-22 14:00:0070.4Historical Elo backfill
Leeds2026-08-30 13:00:0072.3Historical Elo backfill
Leeds2026-09-05 14:00:0072.0Historical Elo backfill
Leeds2026-09-14 19:00:0072.5Historical Elo backfill
Leeds2026-09-20 13:00:0074.3Historical Elo backfill
Leeds2026-10-10 11:30:0073.7Saved pre-match
Leeds2026-10-18 13:00:0073.4Saved pre-match
Manchester City2026-08-23 13:00:0089.0Historical Elo backfill
Manchester City2026-08-28 19:00:0089.3Historical Elo backfill
Manchester City2026-09-05 14:00:0090.0Historical Elo backfill
Manchester City2026-09-13 15:30:0090.1Historical Elo backfill
Manchester City2026-09-20 13:00:0090.7Historical Elo backfill
Manchester City2026-10-11 15:30:0090.8Saved pre-match
Manchester City2026-10-14 19:00:0091.7Saved pre-match
Manchester City2026-10-17 14:00:0090.6Saved pre-match
Chances, finishing & results

Efficiency

From chances to results. Exact values share a scale within each row; colours identify the clubs.

Last 10

Leeds
Manchester City
ConversionGoals / shots · %
9.6% 10/10 covered
14.5% 10/10 covered
Save RateSaves / shots on target faced · %
69.0% 8/10 covered
68.2% 9/10 covered
Goals − xGFinishing gap · per match
-0.19 10/10 covered
+0.24 10/10 covered
xGA − GAGoals prevented · per match
+0.65 10/10 covered
+0.09 10/10 covered
Shot QualityObserved xG / shot
0.112 10/10 covered
0.131 10/10 covered
Shot VolumeShots / 90
11.5 10/10 covered
16.5 10/10 covered
xG / matchLeague season · fixed window
1.36 7/7 covered
2.20 7/7 covered
xGA / matchLeague season · fixed window
1.36 7/7 covered
1.42 7/7 covered
Points / gameLeague season · fixed window
1.43 7/7 league matches
3.00 7/7 league matches
Points vs expected · Form windowUp to 5 matches · stored pure forecasts
-0.71 5/5 Form window
+2.41 5/5 Form window

Leeds · Statistics before 25 Oct 2026 · Recent results D · L · D · W · D

Manchester City · Statistics before 24 Oct 2026 · Recent results W · L · W · W · W

League season

Leeds
Manchester City
ConversionGoals / shots · %
10.7% 7/7 covered
18.6% 7/7 covered
Save RateSaves / shots on target faced · %
72.7% 5/7 covered
72.4% 7/7 covered
Goals − xGFinishing gap · per match
-0.08 7/7 covered
+0.51 7/7 covered
xGA − GAGoals prevented · per match
+0.50 7/7 covered
+0.42 7/7 covered
Shot QualityObserved xG / shot
0.114 7/7 covered
0.151 7/7 covered
Shot VolumeShots / 90
12.0 7/7 covered
14.6 7/7 covered
xG / matchLeague season · fixed window
1.36 7/7 covered
2.20 7/7 covered
xGA / matchLeague season · fixed window
1.36 7/7 covered
1.42 7/7 covered
Points / gameLeague season · fixed window
1.43 7/7 league matches
3.00 7/7 league matches
Points vs expected · Form windowUp to 5 matches · stored pure forecasts
-0.71 5/5 Form window
+2.41 5/5 Form window

Leeds · Statistics before 25 Oct 2026 · Recent results D · L · D · W · D

Manchester City · Statistics before 24 Oct 2026 · Recent results W · L · W · W · W

Positive Goals − xG means more goals scored than the observed chances predicted. Positive xGA − GA means fewer goals conceded than those chances predicted; it reflects defence and goalkeeping together. Gaps are per covered match and pair goals and xG on the same matches. Shot Quality pairs total xG and total shots. Minimum three known matches per metric; missing data stays unavailable.

Butterfly bars grow from the centre towards each club. Length shows magnitude, not superiority; negative gaps use stripes and a minus sign. Percentages use 0–100%, PPG uses 0–3; other rows share the larger absolute value as their limit. xG, xGA and PPG retain their league-season window. Points vs expected retains the latest up to five completed matches with stored pure forecasts across tracked competitions; results are newest first. These observed metrics are not adjusted for league or opponent strength.

About this comparison

Strength ratings share LOAD90’s fixed scales across leagues. Elo reflects opponent quality; Attack and Defence describe performance against the same reference club on a neutral pitch. Form adjusts for opponents and venue. League Strength is not added a second time. Cross-league ratings remain model estimates; sparse connections between leagues and incomplete data limit precision. Explore the methodology →