Top Performing Decklists
| Deck | Creator | Record | Best Finish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unknown Archetype | auzzie51 | 9-1 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 64 #12769925 |
| Azorius Omniscience | dazai | 9-1 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 64 #12769053 |
| Jeskai Oculus | darth_vaner | 8-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 64 #12769053 |
| Izzet Spellslingers | -nausea- | 8-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769865 |
| Jeskai Control | scipios | 8-1 | None |
| Izzet Spellslingers | sanpop | 8-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765784 |
| Jeskai Control | soulstrong | 8-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769865 |
| Jeskai Control | spyromancer | 7-1 | None |
| Temur Beanstalk | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Jeskai Control | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
Performance Stats (Last 14 Days)
Win Rate Impact
Top Table Win Rate
Meta Trend
Sample Size
Tournament Results
Average Copies
Archetypes Using This Card:
4 Color Beanstalk , 4 Color Repurposing , 5 Color Legends , Azorius Affinity , Azorius Aggro , Azorius Angels , Azorius Artifacts , Azorius Auras , Azorius Bounce , Azorius Control
Meta Performance Analysis
Negate ranks #149 out of approximately 387 cards in raw efficiency (top 39%).
Game Impact Factor
Color Differential
Blue average: 75.1%
Performance compared to other Blue cardsBased on our comprehensive multi-metric analysis, Negate is a decent card with average performance in the current meta.
Recommended number of copies: 1
Win Rate Timeline
Card Efficiency Analysis
Raw Efficiency (Win Rate/Mana)
Relative Efficiency
Performance Efficiency: 21.13 (Win rate × Top 8 rate ÷ Mana value)
At 2 mana, the average win rate in the format is 78.2%. Negate has a win rate of 77.3%, making it 1.2% worse than other 2-mana cards.
Top Performing Partners
| Card Name | Type | Deck Count | Win Rate | 1st Places |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Momentum Breaker | Enchantment | 5 | 68.6% | 3 |
| Obstinate Baloth | Creature — Beast | 103 | 55.6% | 26 |
| Wilt-Leaf Liege | Creature — Elf Knight | 115 | 55.4% | 30 |
| Dissection Tools | Artifact — Equipment | 98 | 55.1% | 24 |
| Defabricate | Instant | 6 | 54.4% | 2 |
| Flow of Knowledge | Instant | 5 | 54.3% | 3 |
| Oildeep Gearhulk | Artifact Creature — Construct | 20 | 53.7% | 4 |
| Overlord of the Mistmoors | Enchantment Creature — Avatar Horror | 130 | 53.2% | 32 |
| Devout Decree | Sorcery | 109 | 52.1% | 26 |
| Beza, the Bounding Spring | Legendary Creature — Elemental Elk | 145 | 52.0% | 34 |
Card Synergy Analysis
Cards that perform better with Negate than they do on average. A positive synergy score indicates stronger performance together.
| Card Name | Type | Mana | Decks | Win Rate Together | Win Rate Apart | Synergy Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grim Bauble | Artifact | 1 | 7 | 96.8% | 77.0% | +19.8% |
| Disfigure | Instant | 1 | 5 | 100.0% | 84.2% | +15.8% |
| Deadly Cover-Up | Sorcery | 5 | 5 | 91.7% | 77.3% | +14.3% |
| Hopeless Nightmare | Enchantment | 1 | 7 | 91.4% | 77.3% | +14.2% |
| Fear of Isolation | Enchantment Creature — Nightmare | 2 | 7 | 91.4% | 78.9% | +12.5% |
| Get Out | Instant | 2 | 5 | 100.0% | 88.6% | +11.4% |
| Nowhere to Run | Enchantment | 2 | 10 | 88.1% | 77.5% | +10.6% |
| Brotherhood's End | Sorcery | 3 | 11 | 87.5% | 78.2% | +9.3% |
| Dreams of Steel and Oil | Sorcery | 1 | 13 | 83.1% | 74.9% | +8.2% |
| Malicious Eclipse | Sorcery | 3 | 11 | 81.6% | 74.6% | +7.0% |
Top Archetypes
| Archetype | Deck Count | % of Archetype | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dimir Midrange | 1923 | 92.2% | 50.2% |
| Domain Zur Overlords | 1150 | 86.4% | 48.7% |
| Dimir Bounce | 436 | 87.7% | 50.4% |
| Azorius Tempo | 378 | 95.0% | 44.3% |
| Azorius Control | 368 | 94.1% | 51.3% |
Statistics Explanation
| Statistic | Description | Formula |
|---|---|---|
| Win Rate Impact | How much this card increases or decreases the win rate of decks that include it, compared to the average deck in the format. | (Win rate of decks with this card) - (Average win rate of all decks) |
| Top Table Win Rate | A weighted win rate that gives more significance to performance in higher tournament placements. First place finishes count for 2x, with diminishing weight down to 8th place. | ∑(wins × placement_weight) / ∑((wins + losses) × placement_weight) |
| Meta Trend | Shows if the card is performing better or worse in the most recent period compared to earlier periods. Positive values indicate improving performance. | (Win rate in recent half of time period) - (Win rate in earlier half of time period) |
| Confidence Factor | A measure of statistical reliability based on sample size. The progress bar indicates how confident we are in the statistics (with larger sample sizes providing higher confidence). | log10(Number of decks + 1) |
| Average Copies | The average number of copies of this card included in decks that use it. | ∑(Copies in each deck) / (Number of decks) |
| Card Synergy Score | Measures how well this card performs with other cards compared to their individual performance. | (Win rate together) - (Average of individual win rates) |
| Raw Efficiency | Win rate points per mana invested. Higher values indicate better returns on mana investment. | (Win rate) / (Mana value) |
| Relative Efficiency | How efficient this card is compared to the average card of the same mana value. | ((Win rate) / (Format average win rate for same mana)) / (Mana value) |
| Performance Efficiency | Combined metric that accounts for win rate, tournament success, and mana investment. | (Win rate × Top 8 placement rate) / (Mana value) |
| Game Impact Factor | A measure of how much this card affects game outcomes, based on win rate adjusted by its deviation from the format average. | Win rate × (1 + (Win rate - Format average) / 100) |
| Color Differential | How this card's win rate compares to the average win rate of other cards of the same color. | Win rate - Average win rate for same color |
All statistics are calculated using tournament data from the selected time period. Sample sizes below 10 decks may not provide statistically significant results.