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 |
| Red Deck Wins | numberonenoob | 8-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769907 |
| Izzet Spellslingers | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Gruul Leyline | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Red Deck Wins | 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 |
Performance Stats (Last 14 Days)
Win Rate Impact
Top Table Win Rate
Meta Trend
Sample Size
Tournament Results
Average Copies
Archetypes Using This Card:
Boros Aggro , Boros Auras , Boros Burn , Boros Mice , Gruul Aggro , Gruul Leyline , Izzet Spellslingers , Mardu Prowess , Naya Aggro , Rakdos Aggro
Meta Performance Analysis
Monastery Swiftspear ranks #29 out of approximately 406 cards in raw efficiency (top 7%).
Game Impact Factor
Color Differential
Red average: 62.1%
Performance compared to other Red cardsBased on our comprehensive multi-metric analysis, Monastery Swiftspear is a very strong card that performs well in most contexts.
Recommended number of copies: 4
Win Rate Timeline
Card Efficiency Analysis
Raw Efficiency (Win Rate/Mana)
Relative Efficiency
Performance Efficiency: 53.56 (Win rate × Top 8 rate ÷ Mana value)
At 1 mana, the average win rate in the format is 76.0%. Monastery Swiftspear has a win rate of 79.3%, making it 4.4% better than other 1-mana cards.
Top Performing Partners
| Card Name | Type | Deck Count | Win Rate | 1st Places |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disdainful Stroke | Instant | 19 | 86.5% | 11 |
| Ral, Crackling Wit | Legendary Planeswalker — Ral | 11 | 85.7% | 7 |
| Third Path Iconoclast | Creature — Human Monk | 32 | 85.6% | 19 |
| Slick Sequence | Instant | 26 | 84.5% | 16 |
| Heritage Reclamation | Instant | 7 | 77.5% | 3 |
| Furnace Reins | Sorcery | 19 | 76.6% | 12 |
| Stock Up | Sorcery | 109 | 75.8% | 49 |
| Cori-Steel Cutter | Artifact — Equipment | 140 | 75.8% | 65 |
| Into the Flood Maw | Instant | 93 | 74.7% | 44 |
| Leyline of the Void | Enchantment | 11 | 74.2% | 3 |
Card Synergy Analysis
Cards that perform better with Monastery Swiftspear 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obliterating Bolt | Sorcery | 2 | 9 | 96.7% | 74.5% | +22.2% |
| Chandra, Spark Hunter | Legendary Planeswalker — Chandra | 4 | 7 | 83.7% | 78.1% | +5.6% |
| Disdainful Stroke | Instant | 2 | 18 | 82.9% | 77.3% | +5.5% |
| Obstinate Baloth | Creature — Beast | 4 | 8 | 82.6% | 77.5% | +5.1% |
| Ral, Crackling Wit | Legendary Planeswalker — Ral | 4 | 9 | 83.3% | 78.5% | +4.9% |
| Wild Ride | Sorcery | 1 | 6 | 87.5% | 82.7% | +4.8% |
| Lightning Strike | Instant | 2 | 28 | 80.7% | 76.2% | +4.5% |
| Tersa Lightshatter | Legendary Creature — Orc Wizard | 3 | 18 | 81.2% | 77.1% | +4.1% |
| Pawpatch Formation | Instant | 2 | 14 | 80.2% | 76.5% | +3.8% |
| Boltwave | Sorcery | 1 | 16 | 86.1% | 82.7% | +3.4% |
Top Archetypes
| Archetype | Deck Count | % of Archetype | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Deck Wins | 1104 | 80.2% | 52.0% |
| Gruul Aggro | 665 | 32.0% | 44.6% |
| Boros Burn | 197 | 50.3% | 40.1% |
| Izzet Spellslingers | 139 | 97.9% | 72.2% |
| Gruul Leyline | 55 | 29.1% | 42.7% |
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.