WSWonderkid Scout
Player comparison

Compare the signal on one scale.

Select two verified players to compare published football metrics, senior opportunity, and data confidence side by side.

Player A

Player B

Comparison ready
#206CM

Edan Diop

Age 21 · AS Monaco · Ligue 1

Stats: Cercle Brugge · Belgian Pro League · 2025/26

Open profile
63.0
#97CM

Luciano Valente

Age 22 · Feyenoord · Eredivisie

Open profile
67.3

Head-to-head snapshot

Immediate directional edges before the full visual comparison.

Not a final verdict
Model signal
Edan Diop63.0Luciano Valente edgeLuciano Valente67.3
Current proprietary board signal on the same 0–100 scale.
Role-shape edge
Edan Diop0 edgesLuciano Valente edgeLuciano Valente2 edges
5 shared published role measures; a five-point gap marks a clear edge.
Senior exposure
Edan Diop2,607No clear edgeLuciano Valente2,553
Verified senior minutes in the current release snapshot.

Role-aware verdict · CM

Luciano Valente holds the broader CM edge

3 meaningful role-shape advantages to 2. The largest separation is Duel strength.

6 shared dimensions
Duel strength26 pt edge
5630
Distribution20 pt edge
6686
Defensive activity16 pt edge
3955
Long distribution9 pt edge
5362
Ball security8 pt edge
4941
Edan DiopLuciano Valente
Performance percentile shape
Shared reviewed role-cohort measures on a consistent percentile scale. Internal score construction remains private.
Football percentile comparisonRadar chart comparing Edan Diop and Luciano Valente on their shared published football metrics, independently of the proprietary Wonderkid Score model.ShotsShot accuracyKey passesDribble successBig chancesPassing
Edan DiopLuciano Valente
Senior record
Club output and profile context in the current release snapshot.
MeasureEdan DiopLuciano Valente
Wonderkid Score6367.30
Board rank#206#97
Age2122
Estimated transfer worth~€3m~€18m
Valuation tierUnder €5m€10–24m
Appearances3332
Starts3130
Senior minutes2,6072,553
Goals72
Assists37
PositionCentral MidfieldCentral Midfield
Evidencestrongstrong
Shared advanced metrics
Display values with role-percentile context where available.
MeasureEdan DiopLuciano Valente
Key passes1.59 /90 · 78th1.69 /90 · 82nd
Big chances created0.31 /900.32 /90
Passes40.49 /90 · 68th49.00 /90 · 87th
Long passes2.83 /90 · 54th3.07 /90 · 62nd
Long-pass accuracy52.4% · 48th56.3% · 58th
Ball security1.21 /90 · 49th1.34 /90 · 41st
Dribble attempts3.28 /90 · 83rd3.17 /90 · 81st
Successful dribbles1.48 /90 · 77th1.59 /90 · 81st
Dribble success45.3% · 40th50.0% · 54th
Duels11.70 /90 · 57th9.66 /90 · 27th
Duels won5.42 /90 · 56th4.51 /90 · 30th
Interceptions0.62 /90 · 31st1.16 /90 · 74th
Tackles1.83 /90 · 47th1.62 /90 · 36th
Aerial wins0.90 /90 · 58th0.42 /90 · 21st
Accurate crosses0.79 /900.42 /90
Cross accuracy37.1%22.6%
Research Desk comparisons

Featured head-to-head scouting reads

Open a focused comparison with a defined scouting question, role-aware evidence and direct links to both complete profiles.

Curated comparison

Lamine Yamal vs Estêvão: winger scouting comparison

Compare Lamine Yamal and Estêvão across chance creation, dribbling, xG, xA, senior minutes and role-adjusted winger percentiles.

Open comparison

Curated comparison

Arda Güler vs Nico Paz: attacking-midfield comparison

Compare Arda Güler and Nico Paz across creation, shooting, xG, xA, ball security, senior minutes and attacking-midfield role percentiles.

Open comparison

Curated comparison

Pau Cubarsí vs Jon Martín: centre-back comparison

Compare Pau Cubarsí and Jon Martín across distribution, duels, aerials, interceptions, clearances, senior minutes and centre-back percentiles.

Open comparison

Curated comparison

Ayyoub Bouaddi vs Marc Bernal: midfield comparison

Compare Ayyoub Bouaddi and Marc Bernal across passing, carrying proxies, duels, defensive activity, senior minutes and role-adjusted midfield evidence.

Open comparison

Curated comparison

Warren Zaïre-Emery vs João Neves: midfield comparison

Compare Warren Zaïre-Emery and João Neves across passing, creation, duels, defensive activity, senior minutes and central-midfield percentiles.

Open comparison