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
#150CF

Mateo Biondic

Age 22 · Union Saint-Gilloise · Belgian Pro League

Open profile
64.5
#18CF

Samu Aghehowa

Age 22 · FC Porto · Liga Portugal

Open profile
74.6

Head-to-head snapshot

Immediate directional edges before the full visual comparison.

Not a final verdict
Model signal
Mateo Biondic64.5Samu Aghehowa edgeSamu Aghehowa74.6
Current proprietary board signal on the same 0–100 scale.
Role-shape edge
Mateo Biondic2 edgesMateo Biondic edgeSamu Aghehowa1 edge
5 shared published role measures; a five-point gap marks a clear edge.
Senior exposure
Mateo Biondic757Samu Aghehowa edgeSamu Aghehowa1,416
Verified senior minutes in the current release snapshot.

Role-aware verdict · CF

A split role verdict

Mateo Biondic and Samu Aghehowa each hold 2 meaningful role-shape edges. The largest separation is Chance creation.

7 shared dimensions
Chance creation33 pt edge
4815
Aerial authority23 pt edge
8764
Combination play16 pt edge
2238
Shot generation5 pt edge
8994
Finishing threatLevel
9396
Mateo BiondicSamu Aghehowa
Performance percentile shape
Shared reviewed role-cohort measures on a consistent percentile scale. Internal score construction remains private.
Football percentile comparisonRadar chart comparing Mateo Biondic and Samu Aghehowa on their shared published football metrics, independently of the proprietary Wonderkid Score model.ShotsShot accuracyKey passesDribble successBig chancesPassing
Mateo BiondicSamu Aghehowa
Senior record
Club output and profile context in the current release snapshot.
MeasureMateo BiondicSamu Aghehowa
Wonderkid Score64.5074.60
Board rank#150#18
Age2222
Estimated transfer worth~€3m~€55m
Valuation tierUnder €5m€50–69m
Appearances1520
Starts919
Senior minutes7571,416
Goals413
Assists21
PositionCentre-ForwardCentre-Forward
Evidencemoderatestrong
Shared advanced metrics
Display values with role-percentile context where available.
MeasureMateo BiondicSamu Aghehowa
Shots3.21 /90 · 83rd3.56 /90 · 90th
Shots on target1.78 /90 · 95th2.10 /90 · 98th
Shot accuracy55.6% · 90th58.9% · 93rd
Big chances created0.12 /900.13 /90
Key passes1.07 /90 · 48th0.64 /90 · 15th
Successful dribbles1.07 /90 · 43rd1.21 /90 · 49th
Dribble attempts2.38 /90 · 38th2.86 /90 · 50th
Dribble success45.0% · 52nd42.2% · 43rd
Accurate crosses0.12 /900.06 /90
Crosses0.71 /90 · 27th0.32 /90 · 12th
Cross accuracy16.7%20.0%
Ball security0.95 /90 · 83rd1.59 /90 · 44th
Fouls won0.71 /90 · 11th1.72 /90 · 63rd
Passes19.14 /90 · 38th15.51 /90 · 18th
Completed passes13.08 /90 · 33rd11.31 /90 · 23rd
Pass accuracy68.3% · 22nd73.0% · 38th
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