Example report · Level 8
A Level 8 twenty ELO from Level 9
The closest gap in this set. What a report looks like when the answer is "almost nothing needs to change".
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.
1,731 ELO. Level 9 starts at 1,751. This player is 20 ELO away — one won match short, and the report says so: 8 matches at a 55% win rate, 6 at 57%, 4 at 60%.
It is worth publishing a report like this alongside the others, because most examples of a diagnostic tool are chosen to be dramatic. This one is chosen because it is not. Across 1,279 matches they hold a 51% win rate, ADR 74.0, K/D 1.05, 48% headshots. The report’s top finding scores 62, and its estimated value is 1–2 points of win rate.
Sometimes the honest answer is “you are fine, here is the smallest thing”.
What the report found
Their utility does 3.5 damage per round, against a 4.57 median for Level 8. Out of the same grenade budget as everyone else, they get about three-quarters of the return.
The supporting numbers: 6,305 non-flash grenades thrown across their extended-stats history, returning 11.2 damage each, alongside 9,701 flashes at a 46% success rate.
That flash count is worth pausing on. They throw more flashes than non-flash grenades — 0.48 per round — which is the correct direction, and the opposite of what the Level 10 session profile does. Their mix is good. Their output is low. The report distinguishes between those two failures and targets the one that is actually happening: get utility damage per round from 3.5 up toward 5.3.
Why this is the top card at only severity 62
Because everything else is smaller. The ranked list:
- Utility, 62. Above.
- Role, 60. 47.3% opening duels won against 51% median — but they take only 17.5% of them, below the 20.4% median. They are not overextending, they are just slightly losing the ones they are in.
- Map pool, 53. Nuke at 46% over 35 matches, Inferno at 47% over 142.
- Sessions, 41. Eleven sessions, none of which ran long and ended negative. Two instances of queueing past two straight losses, 45% including late matches. Mild.
Four findings within 21 severity points of each other is what a well-rounded profile looks like. No single thing is wrong. The report ranks them anyway, because “everything is slightly off” is not actionable and “start with utility” is.
The thing worth taking from this one
At 20 ELO out, the temptation is to grind — queue more, push through, get it done. Their session card is the mildest in this set precisely because they have not been doing that, and it is probably why they are 20 out rather than 200.
A player this close does not need a project. They need one more win than loss. The 1–2 points of win rate from fixing utility output is, at this distance, overwhelming.
What the report could not tell them
Both caveats on this card are worth reading as a demonstration of what the data does not support:
- Their non-flash grenade number is HE, molotovs and smokes together, because FACEIT reports them as one figure. The damage-per-grenade number is exact; any claim about which grenade is wasted would not be.
- Some of their map history — Train at 60%, Overpass at 59% — is on maps no longer in the pool, and is marked dead rather than counted.
The report, in full
Everything below this line is generated. It is what the site returns for any profile you paste into it.