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
#196CF

Joe Hugill

Age 22 · Kilmarnock FC · Scottish Premiership

Open profile
63.3
#235CF

Artem Stepanov

Age 18 · FC Utrecht · Eredivisie

Stats: FC Utrecht · Eredivisie · 2025/26

Open profile
61.7

Head-to-head snapshot

Immediate directional edges before the full visual comparison.

Not a final verdict
Model signal
Joe Hugill63.3Joe Hugill edgeArtem Stepanov61.7
Current proprietary board signal on the same 0–100 scale.
Role-shape edge
Joe Hugill4 edgesJoe Hugill edgeArtem Stepanov1 edge
5 shared published role measures; a five-point gap marks a clear edge.
Senior exposure
Joe Hugill1,091Joe Hugill edgeArtem Stepanov941
Verified senior minutes in the current release snapshot.

Role-aware verdict · CF

Artem Stepanov holds the broader CF edge

4 meaningful role-shape advantages to 2. The largest separation is Aerial authority.

7 shared dimensions
Aerial authority32 pt edge
5183
Finishing threat25 pt edge
7146
Duel strength23 pt edge
124
Combination play17 pt edge
1027
Chance creation12 pt edge
2917
Joe HugillArtem Stepanov
Performance percentile shape
Shared reviewed role-cohort measures on a consistent percentile scale. Internal score construction remains private.
Football percentile comparisonRadar chart comparing Joe Hugill and Artem Stepanov on their shared published football metrics, independently of the proprietary Wonderkid Score model.ShotsShot accuracyKey passesDribble successBig chancesPassing
Joe HugillArtem Stepanov
Senior record
Club output and profile context in the current release snapshot.
MeasureJoe HugillArtem Stepanov
Wonderkid Score63.3061.70
Board rank#196#235
Age2218
Estimated transfer worth~€2m~€2m
Valuation tierUnder €5mUnder €5m
Appearances1515
Starts1213
Senior minutes1,091941
Goals85
Assists21
PositionCentre-ForwardCentre-Forward
Evidencestrongstrong
Shared advanced metrics
Display values with role-percentile context where available.
MeasureJoe HugillArtem Stepanov
Shots2.31 /90 · 54th2.96 /90 · 77th
Shots on target1.07 /90 · 69th0.96 /90 · 61st
Shot accuracy46.4% · 74th32.3% · 32nd
Big chances created0.33 /900.10 /90
Key passes0.82 /90 · 29th0.67 /90 · 17th
Successful dribbles0.41 /90 · 8th0.77 /90 · 26th
Dribble attempts0.74 /90 · 2nd2.39 /90 · 39th
Dribble success55.6% · 81st32.0% · 15th
Accurate crosses0.25 /900.10 /90
Crosses0.99 /90 · 36th0.67 /90 · 25th
Cross accuracy25.0%14.3%
Ball security0.41 /90 · 98th1.43 /90 · 55th
Fouls won0.41 /90 · 3rd0.48 /90 · 4th
Passes12.62 /90 · 5th16.26 /90 · 22nd
Completed passes8.08 /90 · 4th11.38 /90 · 23rd
Pass accuracy64.1% · 10th70.0% · 27th
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