Example report · Level 10
A Level 10 with a 57% win rate and the worst entry balance in this set
The highest win rate of any example here, and still the most overextended. Role mismatch does not resolve itself on the way up.
This is a real FACEIT profile, anonymised. Every statistic below is exactly as the public FACEIT API returned it on 2026-08-13 — nothing is illustrative and nothing is rounded for effect. The account name, avatar and match ids are replaced, because there is no reason to attach a stranger's name to a permanent page analysing their play.
The report underneath is the same report you get for your own profile, produced by the same engine. It is frozen rather than live so the analysis written around it keeps describing what the page shows.
Level 10, 2,041 ELO, and a 57% win rate across 522 matches — the best of any profile in this set. This is a genuinely strong player by every aggregate measure that gets quoted.
The report scores their top leak at 70 anyway, and the finding is that they are in a quarter of their team’s opening duels.
What the report found
26.2% of opening duels, against a measured median of 19.4%. That is the highest entry rate in this set of examples, from the highest-rated account in it.
They win 47.1% of them, against a 50.8% median. Balance across 2,236 duels: −130.
Note which median that is. At 2,041 ELO this account sits in the 2001–2200 band, and it is compared against the 32 profiles measured in that band — not against every Level 10 pooled together. Pooled, the Level 10 median opening duel rate is 52.4%, which would have made this player look 5.3 points short instead of 3.7. That pooled figure describes a player around 2,800 ELO, and holding a freshly promoted Level 10 to it is not a fair comparison. There is more on why in Gap to Pro.
For context on how far outside normal the rate is, entry rate barely moves anywhere on the ladder — 18.8% to 20.4% at every level from 2 to 10, and 19.4% to 21.7% across the elite bands. Being in 26% of your team’s opening duels is not a small deviation from that. It is a role, chosen or drifted into, and it is not paying.
The trap this profile illustrates
A 57% win rate is evidence that something is working. The natural inference is that whatever they are doing is correct and should be done more.
But look at what the rest of the card says they are good at. Their map splits are the strongest here by a distance: Inferno 67% over 52 matches, Dust2 62% over 87, Anubis 61% over 56. Their utility does 5.9 damage per round against a 4.7 band median — well above. Their 1v1 clutch rate is 38%, at median.
They are winning despite the opening duels, on the strength of map knowledge, utility and post-plant play. Which means the 57% is what this player looks like with a −130 entry balance attached, and the question the report is asking is what they look like without it.
What “fix” means here
Not aim. There is nothing in this profile suggesting a mechanical deficit — 79.4 ADR and a 1.06 K/D at Level 10 with a 44% headshot rate is a player who trades fine.
The fix is the same as on the Level 6 profile, which is the point:
Enter second, within trade distance — close enough that your death costs them a player.
Say it in comms: you are the trade, not the opener.
Role mismatch is not a low-level problem that players grow out of. It survives to 2,000 ELO, and at 2,000 ELO it is harder to see, because the win rate covering it up is good enough that nobody asks.
The map card, and the one line that matters on it
Nuke at 43% over 58 matches against Inferno at 67% over 52. Almost identical sample sizes, 24 points apart. The report recommends a permanent ban and it is hard to argue: this is a player with demonstrable map mastery who keeps queueing the one map they do not have it on.
A note on the gap number
This profile is 160 ELO from 2,201, the floor of the next measured band.
That target only exists because of this example. Level 10 is the one level with no ceiling, so the report originally had nothing to aim a Level 10 at: FACEIT does not publish historical peak ELO, and the fallback reported accounts like this one as “1 ELO from your peak, 0 matches away” — the product’s headline number saying nothing at all.
The fix was to stop treating Level 10 as one place. It is five measured bands running from 2001 to past 4,000, so this account has a rung 160 ELO above it and a projection to go with it. The measurement behind that is on Gap to Pro.
The report, in full
Everything below this line is generated. It is what the site returns for any profile you paste into it.