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
#18CF

Samu Aghehowa

Age 22 · FC Porto · Liga Portugal

Open profile
74.6
#150CF

Mateo Biondic

Age 22 · Union Saint-Gilloise · Belgian Pro League

Open profile
64.5

Head-to-head snapshot

Immediate directional edges before the full visual comparison.

Not a final verdict
Model signal
Samu Aghehowa74.6Samu Aghehowa edgeMateo Biondic64.5
Current proprietary board signal on the same 0–100 scale.
Role-shape edge
Samu Aghehowa1 edgeMateo Biondic edgeMateo Biondic2 edges
5 shared published role measures; a five-point gap marks a clear edge.
Senior exposure
Samu Aghehowa1,416Samu Aghehowa edgeMateo Biondic757
Verified senior minutes in the current release snapshot.

Role-aware verdict · CF

A split role verdict

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

7 shared dimensions
Chance creation33 pt edge
1548
Aerial authority23 pt edge
6487
Combination play16 pt edge
3822
Shot generation5 pt edge
9489
Finishing threatLevel
9693
Samu AghehowaMateo Biondic
Performance percentile shape
Shared reviewed role-cohort measures on a consistent percentile scale. Internal score construction remains private.
Football percentile comparisonRadar chart comparing Samu Aghehowa and Mateo Biondic on their shared published football metrics, independently of the proprietary Wonderkid Score model.ShotsShot accuracyKey passesDribble successBig chancesPassing
Samu AghehowaMateo Biondic
Senior record
Club output and profile context in the current release snapshot.
MeasureSamu AghehowaMateo Biondic
Wonderkid Score74.6064.50
Board rank#18#150
Age2222
Estimated transfer worth~€55m~€3m
Valuation tier€50–69mUnder €5m
Appearances2015
Starts199
Senior minutes1,416757
Goals134
Assists12
PositionCentre-ForwardCentre-Forward
Evidencestrongmoderate
Shared advanced metrics
Display values with role-percentile context where available.
MeasureSamu AghehowaMateo Biondic
Shots3.56 /90 · 90th3.21 /90 · 83rd
Shots on target2.10 /90 · 98th1.78 /90 · 95th
Shot accuracy58.9% · 93rd55.6% · 90th
Big chances created0.13 /900.12 /90
Key passes0.64 /90 · 15th1.07 /90 · 48th
Successful dribbles1.21 /90 · 49th1.07 /90 · 43rd
Dribble attempts2.86 /90 · 50th2.38 /90 · 38th
Dribble success42.2% · 43rd45.0% · 52nd
Accurate crosses0.06 /900.12 /90
Crosses0.32 /90 · 12th0.71 /90 · 27th
Cross accuracy20.0%16.7%
Ball security1.59 /90 · 44th0.95 /90 · 83rd
Fouls won1.72 /90 · 63rd0.71 /90 · 11th
Passes15.51 /90 · 18th19.14 /90 · 38th
Completed passes11.31 /90 · 23rd13.08 /90 · 33rd
Pass accuracy73.0% · 38th68.3% · 22nd
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