Clubs Compare

Utrecht vs Willem II

Real strength. Different football profiles.

Utrecht

Eredivisie · 2026-2027

Rating as of 20 Oct 2026
Power34.0

Willem II

Eredivisie · 2026-2027

Rating as of 20 Oct 2026
Power9.8
The football profile

Club DNA

UtrechtWillem II

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 Utrecht · Power 34.0 ptsUtrecht · Attack 31.7 ptsUtrecht · Defence 30.6 ptsUtrecht · Form 65.0 ptsUtrecht · Consistency 56.0 ptsUtrecht · Squad Availability 86.6 % Willem II · Power 9.8 ptsWillem II · Attack 9.6 ptsWillem II · Defence 8.7 ptsWillem II · Form 8.3 ptsWillem II · Squad Availability 96.2 % 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 Utrecht · Power 34.0 ptsUtrecht · Attack 31.7 ptsUtrecht · Defence 30.6 ptsUtrecht · Form 65.0 ptsUtrecht · Consistency 56.0 ptsUtrecht · Squad Availability 86.6 % Willem II · Power 9.8 ptsWillem II · Attack 9.6 ptsWillem II · Defence 8.7 ptsWillem II · Form 8.3 ptsWillem II · Squad Availability 96.2 %
Ratings · 0–100 · Availability is a percentage

Strength comparison

Point gaps · Availability in percentage points

34.0Power9.8
Utrecht +24.2 pts
31.7Attack9.6
Utrecht +22.1 pts
30.6Defence8.7
Utrecht +21.9 pts
65.0Form8.3
Utrecht +56.7 pts
56.0Consistency—
Shared data unavailable
86.6%Squad Availability96.2%
Willem II +9.6 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

  • Utrecht shows better recent form.
  • Utrecht has the higher Power rating.
  • Utrecht has the stronger attacking profile.
  • Willem II 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.

Utrecht · Form 5/5 · Consistency 20/20 covered matches · 1 pre-match / 19 historical forecast backfills · Availability · last completed match 18 Oct 2026

Willem II · Form 5/5 · Consistency 9/9 covered matches · 1 pre-match / 8 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.

Utrecht · Current gap SD 1.32 points · mean gap 0.28 · Full window

Willem II · Current gap SD 0.59 points · mean gap -0.58 · Insufficient 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 Utrecht · Possession 43.1 %Utrecht · Pass accuracy 80.3 %Utrecht · Shots in the box 68.3 %Utrecht · On target share 32.8 %Utrecht · Shot Frequency 3.5 shots/100 passesUtrecht · Corner Pressure 4.7 corners/90 Willem II · Possession 39.9 %Willem II · Pass accuracy 77.6 %Willem II · Shots in the box 68.4 %Willem II · On target share 23.8 %Willem II · Shot Frequency 3.3 shots/100 passesWillem II · Corner Pressure 3.8 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 Utrecht · Possession 43.1 %Utrecht · Pass accuracy 80.3 %Utrecht · Shots in the box 68.3 %Utrecht · On target share 32.8 %Utrecht · Shot Frequency 3.5 shots/100 passesUtrecht · Corner Pressure 4.7 corners/90 Willem II · Possession 39.9 %Willem II · Pass accuracy 77.6 %Willem II · Shots in the box 68.4 %Willem II · On target share 23.8 %Willem II · Shot Frequency 3.3 shots/100 passesWillem II · Corner Pressure 3.8 corners/90
Native units · axis ranges shown · larger is not better

How they play

Differences in each metric’s native units

43.1%Possession39.9%
Utrecht +3.2 pp
80.3%Pass accuracy77.6%
Utrecht +2.7 pp
68.3%Shots in the box68.4%
Willem II +0.1 pp
32.8%On target share23.8%
Utrecht +9.0 pp
3.5Shot Frequency3.3
Utrecht +0.3 shots/100 passes
4.7Corner Pressure3.8
Utrecht +0.9 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.

Utrecht · Window 10 matches · before 24 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 10/10 · Corner Pressure 9/10 covered regulation matches. Per-metric coverage of the four percentage shares is unavailable.

Willem II · Window 10 matches · before 24 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 9/10 · Corner Pressure 9/10 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 Utrecht · Power 33.0 ptsUtrecht · Form 22.8 ptsUtrecht · Consistency 54.7 pts Willem II · Power 11.3 ptsWillem II · Form 10.4 pts 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 Utrecht · Power 33.0 ptsUtrecht · Form 22.8 ptsUtrecht · Consistency 54.7 pts Willem II · Power 11.3 ptsWillem II · Form 10.4 pts
Ratings · 0–100 · Availability is a percentage

Strength comparison

Point gaps · Availability in percentage points

33.0Power11.3
Utrecht +21.7 pts
—Attack—
Shared data unavailable
—Defence—
Shared data unavailable
22.8Form10.4
Utrecht +12.4 pts
54.7Consistency—
Shared data unavailable
—Squad Availability—
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

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

Utrecht · Power 9 · Attack 1 · Defence 1 · Form 6 · Consistency 9 · Squad Availability 1 · 1 pre-match / 8 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.

Willem II · Power 9 · Attack 1 · Defence 1 · Form 6 · Consistency 0 · Squad Availability 1 · 1 pre-match / 8 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.

Utrecht · Current gap SD 1.32 points · mean gap 0.28 · Full window

Willem II · Current gap SD 0.59 points · mean gap -0.58 · Insufficient 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 Utrecht · Possession 43.3 %Utrecht · Pass accuracy 80.0 %Utrecht · Shots in the box 68.5 %Utrecht · On target share 33.6 %Utrecht · Shot Frequency 3.3 shots/100 passesUtrecht · Corner Pressure 4.3 corners/90 Willem II · Possession 39.9 %Willem II · Pass accuracy 77.6 %Willem II · Shots in the box 68.4 %Willem II · On target share 23.8 %Willem II · Shot Frequency 3.3 shots/100 passesWillem II · Corner Pressure 3.8 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 Utrecht · Possession 43.3 %Utrecht · Pass accuracy 80.0 %Utrecht · Shots in the box 68.5 %Utrecht · On target share 33.6 %Utrecht · Shot Frequency 3.3 shots/100 passesUtrecht · Corner Pressure 4.3 corners/90 Willem II · Possession 39.9 %Willem II · Pass accuracy 77.6 %Willem II · Shots in the box 68.4 %Willem II · On target share 23.8 %Willem II · Shot Frequency 3.3 shots/100 passesWillem II · Corner Pressure 3.8 corners/90
Native units · axis ranges shown · larger is not better

How they play

Differences in each metric’s native units

43.3%Possession39.9%
Utrecht +3.4 pp
80.0%Pass accuracy77.6%
Utrecht +2.4 pp
68.5%Shots in the box68.4%
Utrecht +0.1 pp
33.6%On target share23.8%
Utrecht +9.8 pp
3.3Shot Frequency3.3
Level
4.3Corner Pressure3.8
Utrecht +0.5 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.

Utrecht · Window 9 matches · before 24 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 9/9 · Corner Pressure 8/9 covered regulation matches. Per-metric coverage of the four percentage shares is unavailable.

Willem II · Window 9 matches · before 24 Oct 2026 · Shot Frequency 9/9 · Corner Pressure 9/9 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 Utrecht · 2026-08-09 12:30:00 UTC · 37.5 · backfill Utrecht · 2026-08-15 16:45:00 UTC · 36 · backfill Utrecht · 2026-08-22 16:45:00 UTC · 33 · backfill Utrecht · 2026-08-30 10:15:00 UTC · 33 · backfill Utrecht · 2026-09-08 12:00:00 UTC · 31.3 · backfill Utrecht · 2026-09-13 10:15:00 UTC · 30.7 · backfill Utrecht · 2026-09-20 10:15:00 UTC · 32.5 · backfill Utrecht · 2026-10-11 10:15:00 UTC · 31.2 · backfill Utrecht · 2026-10-18 18:00:00 UTC · 31.8 · pre Willem II · 2026-08-08 16:45:00 UTC · 12.9 · backfill Willem II · 2026-08-15 14:30:00 UTC · 12.3 · backfill Willem II · 2026-08-30 12:30:00 UTC · 11.6 · backfill Willem II · 2026-09-05 19:00:00 UTC · 11.7 · backfill Willem II · 2026-09-11 18:00:00 UTC · 10.7 · backfill Willem II · 2026-09-15 18:00:00 UTC · 11.2 · backfill Willem II · 2026-09-19 19:00:00 UTC · 11 · backfill Willem II · 2026-10-11 10:15:00 UTC · 10.4 · backfill Willem II · 2026-10-17 19:00:00 UTC · 10.1 · pre 8 Aug 202618 Oct 2026
UtrechtWillem II
View history data and coverage
ClubDate (UTC)PowerSource
Utrecht2026-08-09 12:30:0037.5Historical Elo backfill
Utrecht2026-08-15 16:45:0036.0Historical Elo backfill
Utrecht2026-08-22 16:45:0033.0Historical Elo backfill
Utrecht2026-08-30 10:15:0033.0Historical Elo backfill
Utrecht2026-09-08 12:00:0031.3Historical Elo backfill
Utrecht2026-09-13 10:15:0030.7Historical Elo backfill
Utrecht2026-09-20 10:15:0032.5Historical Elo backfill
Utrecht2026-10-11 10:15:0031.2Historical Elo backfill
Utrecht2026-10-18 18:00:0031.8Saved pre-match
Willem II2026-08-08 16:45:0012.9Historical Elo backfill
Willem II2026-08-15 14:30:0012.3Historical Elo backfill
Willem II2026-08-30 12:30:0011.6Historical Elo backfill
Willem II2026-09-05 19:00:0011.7Historical Elo backfill
Willem II2026-09-11 18:00:0010.7Historical Elo backfill
Willem II2026-09-15 18:00:0011.2Historical Elo backfill
Willem II2026-09-19 19:00:0011.0Historical Elo backfill
Willem II2026-10-11 10:15:0010.4Historical Elo backfill
Willem II2026-10-17 19:00:0010.1Saved pre-match
Chances, finishing & results

Efficiency

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

Last 10

Utrecht
Willem II
ConversionGoals / shots · %
13.9% 10/10 covered
8.6% 9/10 covered
Save RateSaves / shots on target faced · %
57.4% 10/10 covered
60.6% 9/10 covered
Goals − xGFinishing gap · per match
+0.62 7/10 covered
+0.12 5/10 covered
xGA − GAGoals prevented · per match
-1.06 7/10 covered
-0.95 5/10 covered
Shot QualityObserved xG / shot
0.096 7/10 covered
0.114 5/10 covered
Shot VolumeShots / 90
13.7 10/10 covered
11.7 9/10 covered
xG / matchLeague season · fixed window
1.31 6/9 covered
1.28 5/9 covered
xGA / matchLeague season · fixed window
1.72 6/9 covered
2.25 5/9 covered
Points / gameLeague season · fixed window
1.22 9/9 league matches
0.22 9/9 league matches
Points vs expected · Form windowUp to 5 matches · stored pure forecasts
+4.17 5/5 Form window
-2.46 5/5 Form window

Utrecht · Statistics before 24 Oct 2026 · Recent results W · W · L · W · D

Willem II · Statistics before 24 Oct 2026 · Recent results L · L · L · L · D

League season

Utrecht
Willem II
ConversionGoals / shots · %
13.8% 9/9 covered
8.6% 9/9 covered
Save RateSaves / shots on target faced · %
57.1% 9/9 covered
60.6% 9/9 covered
Goals − xGFinishing gap · per match
+0.52 6/9 covered
+0.12 5/9 covered
xGA − GAGoals prevented · per match
-1.11 6/9 covered
-0.95 5/9 covered
Shot QualityObserved xG / shot
0.099 6/9 covered
0.114 5/9 covered
Shot VolumeShots / 90
12.9 9/9 covered
11.7 9/9 covered
xG / matchLeague season · fixed window
1.31 6/9 covered
1.28 5/9 covered
xGA / matchLeague season · fixed window
1.72 6/9 covered
2.25 5/9 covered
Points / gameLeague season · fixed window
1.22 9/9 league matches
0.22 9/9 league matches
Points vs expected · Form windowUp to 5 matches · stored pure forecasts
+4.17 5/5 Form window
-2.46 5/5 Form window

Utrecht · Statistics before 24 Oct 2026 · Recent results W · W · L · W · D

Willem II · Statistics before 24 Oct 2026 · Recent results L · L · L · L · D

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 →