Top Performing Decklists
| Deck | Creator | Record | Best Finish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Deck Wins | luffydochapeudepalha | 9-1 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765769 |
| Gruul Aggro | mogged | 8-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765784 |
| Red Deck Wins | numberonenoob | 8-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769907 |
| Red Deck Wins | kablewire | 8-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769892 |
| Red Deck Wins | latorretta | 7-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769073 |
| Gruul Aggro | mogged | 7-1 | None |
| Dimir Midrange | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Red Deck Wins | pedrastone | 7-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769073 |
| Dimir Midrange | arianne | 7-2 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765757 |
| Orzhov Pixie | sam_lewin | 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:
Abzan Midrange , Abzan Pixie , Azorius Affinity , Azorius Aggro , Azorius Angels , Azorius Auras , Azorius Convoke , Azorius Flash , Azorius Glyph , Boros Auras
Meta Performance Analysis
Soulstone Sanctuary ranks #411 out of approximately 410 cards in raw efficiency (top 100%).
Game Impact Factor
Color Differential
Colorless average: 64.0%
Performance compared to other Colorless cardsBased on our comprehensive multi-metric analysis, Soulstone Sanctuary is an underperforming card in the current meta.
Recommended number of copies: 1
Win Rate Timeline
Card Efficiency Analysis
Raw Efficiency (Win Rate/Mana)
Relative Efficiency
Performance Efficiency: 41.49 (Win rate × Top 8 rate ÷ Mana value)
At 0 mana, the average win rate in the format is 74.4%. Soulstone Sanctuary has a win rate of 73.2%, making it 1.6% worse than other 0-mana cards.
Top Performing Partners
| Card Name | Type | Deck Count | Win Rate | 1st Places |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flowstone Infusion | Instant | 6 | 100.0% | 6 |
| Vinereap Mentor | Creature — Squirrel Druid | 5 | 89.3% | 3 |
| Feather of Flight | Enchantment — Aura | 5 | 88.0% | 4 |
| Crumb and Get It | Instant | 12 | 83.5% | 7 |
| Spellbook Vendor | Creature — Human Peasant | 16 | 81.0% | 9 |
| Become Brutes | Sorcery | 7 | 81.0% | 5 |
| Heritage Reclamation | Instant | 12 | 79.4% | 7 |
| Cunning Coyote | Creature — Coyote | 5 | 78.6% | 3 |
| Bruse Tarl, Roving Rancher | Legendary Creature — Human Warrior | 6 | 77.4% | 3 |
| Devout Decree | Sorcery | 10 | 76.1% | 5 |
Card Synergy Analysis
Cards that perform better with Soulstone Sanctuary 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rot-Curse Rakshasa | Creature — Demon | 2 | 5 | 100.0% | 79.0% | +21.0% |
| The Filigree Sylex | Legendary Artifact | 2 | 6 | 88.0% | 73.4% | +14.6% |
| Lumbering Worldwagon | Artifact — Vehicle | 3 | 5 | 100.0% | 86.6% | +13.4% |
| The End | Instant | 4 | 10 | 84.2% | 75.2% | +9.0% |
| Heritage Reclamation | Instant | 2 | 12 | 83.9% | 75.0% | +8.9% |
| Debris Beetle | Artifact — Vehicle | 4 | 5 | 82.6% | 74.1% | +8.5% |
| Disfigure | Instant | 1 | 5 | 89.7% | 81.4% | +8.2% |
| Harvester of Misery | Creature — Spirit | 5 | 16 | 83.8% | 75.8% | +8.0% |
| Surrak, Elusive Hunter | Legendary Creature — Human Warrior | 3 | 11 | 83.8% | 76.0% | +7.9% |
| Get Out | Instant | 2 | 14 | 85.5% | 78.6% | +6.9% |
Top Archetypes
| Archetype | Deck Count | % of Archetype | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dimir Midrange | 1576 | 75.7% | 51.1% |
| Gruul Aggro | 1070 | 51.3% | 50.5% |
| Red Deck Wins | 728 | 52.5% | 54.6% |
| Dimir Bounce | 439 | 88.5% | 50.5% |
| Golgari Demons | 354 | 65.0% | 48.9% |
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.