Top Performing Decklists
| Deck | Creator | Record | Best Finish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gruul Aggro | mogged | 9-1 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769892 |
| Izzet Spellslingers | -nausea- | 8-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769865 |
| Rakdos Aggro | stalonge | 7-1 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769901 |
| Izzet Spellslingers | sanpop | 8-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765784 |
| Izzet Spellslingers | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Jund Delirium | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Izzet Spellslingers | junkmener | 7-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765778 |
| Izzet Spellslingers | darthkid | 7-2 | None |
| Red Deck Wins | pokerswizard | 6-2 | None |
| Izzet Spellslingers | alemilan19 | 6-2 | None |
Performance Stats (Last 14 Days)
Win Rate Impact
Top Table Win Rate
Meta Trend
Sample Size
Tournament Results
Average Copies
Archetypes Using This Card:
Grixis Bounce , Gruul Aggro , Gruul Leyline , Izzet Spellslingers , Jeskai Aggro , Jund Delirium , Rakdos Aggro , Red Deck Wins , Unknown Archetype
Meta Performance Analysis
Cori-Steel Cutter ranks #131 out of approximately 406 cards in raw efficiency (top 32%).
Game Impact Factor
Color Differential
Red average: 62.1%
Performance compared to other Red cardsBased on our comprehensive multi-metric analysis, Cori-Steel Cutter 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: 25.93 (Win rate × Top 8 rate ÷ Mana value)
At 2 mana, the average win rate in the format is 74.7%. Cori-Steel Cutter has a win rate of 78.0%, making it 4.5% better than other 2-mana cards.
Top Performing Partners
| Card Name | Type | Deck Count | Win Rate | 1st Places |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Floodpits Drowner | Creature — Merfolk | 5 | 88.6% | 3 |
| Chandra, Spark Hunter | Legendary Planeswalker — Chandra | 7 | 86.5% | 4 |
| Third Path Iconoclast | Creature — Human Monk | 32 | 85.6% | 19 |
| Obstinate Baloth | Creature — Beast | 8 | 85.3% | 5 |
| Disdainful Stroke | Instant | 21 | 85.1% | 11 |
| Abrade | Instant | 30 | 83.6% | 16 |
| Shock | Instant | 18 | 83.5% | 10 |
| Furnace Reins | Sorcery | 8 | 83.0% | 5 |
| Callous Sell-Sword | Creature — Human Soldier // Sorcery — Adventure | 12 | 82.7% | 7 |
| Ral, Crackling Wit | Legendary Planeswalker — Ral | 9 | 82.5% | 5 |
Card Synergy Analysis
Cards that perform better with Cori-Steel Cutter 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tishana's Tidebinder | Creature — Merfolk Wizard | 3 | 7 | 88.2% | 75.5% | +12.7% |
| Floodpits Drowner | Creature — Merfolk | 2 | 5 | 86.2% | 75.3% | +10.9% |
| Fear of Isolation | Enchantment Creature — Nightmare | 2 | 5 | 83.3% | 75.9% | +7.4% |
| Chandra, Spark Hunter | Legendary Planeswalker — Chandra | 4 | 7 | 83.7% | 77.5% | +6.2% |
| Obstinate Baloth | Creature — Beast | 4 | 8 | 82.6% | 76.8% | +5.8% |
| Disdainful Stroke | Instant | 2 | 21 | 82.3% | 76.7% | +5.6% |
| Ral, Crackling Wit | Legendary Planeswalker — Ral | 4 | 9 | 83.3% | 77.8% | +5.5% |
| Duress | Sorcery | 1 | 18 | 80.7% | 76.0% | +4.7% |
| Nowhere to Run | Enchantment | 2 | 6 | 80.0% | 75.4% | +4.6% |
| Hopeless Nightmare | Enchantment | 1 | 6 | 80.0% | 75.6% | +4.4% |
Top Archetypes
| Archetype | Deck Count | % of Archetype | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Izzet Spellslingers | 106 | 74.7% | 75.7% |
| Gruul Aggro | 21 | 1.0% | 63.0% |
| Red Deck Wins | 14 | 1.0% | 72.1% |
| Rakdos Aggro | 11 | 16.2% | 81.2% |
| Unknown Archetype | 6 | 1.6% | 56.4% |
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.