Top Performing Decklists
| Deck | Creator | Record | Best Finish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Esper Pixie | houseofmanamtg | 7-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765757 |
| Esper Pixie | gyrabbit47 | 7-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765778 |
| Mono Black Demons | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Rakdos Sacrifice | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Orzhov Angels | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Esper Pixie | mei0024 | 6-1 | None |
| Esper Pixie | johnny_hobbs | 6-2 | None |
| Esper Pixie | misplacedginger | 6-2 | None |
| Esper Pixie | varo | 6-2 | None |
| Esper Pixie | misplacedginger | 6-3 | 2nd in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765740 |
Performance Stats (Last 14 Days)
Win Rate Impact
Top Table Win Rate
Meta Trend
Sample Size
Tournament Results
Average Copies
Archetypes Using This Card:
Dimir Bounce , Dimir Midrange , Esper Pixie , Mono Black Demons , Orzhov Angels , Orzhov Enchantments , Orzhov Pixie , Rakdos Cauldron , Rakdos Sacrifice , Unclassified
Meta Performance Analysis
Spiteful Hexmage ranks #62 out of approximately 405 cards in raw efficiency (top 15%).
Game Impact Factor
Color Differential
Black average: 74.7%
Performance compared to other Black cardsBased on our comprehensive multi-metric analysis, Spiteful Hexmage is a solid card that performs above average in the current meta.
Recommended number of copies: 3
Win Rate Timeline
Card Efficiency Analysis
Raw Efficiency (Win Rate/Mana)
Relative Efficiency
Performance Efficiency: 37.46 (Win rate × Top 8 rate ÷ Mana value)
At 1 mana, the average win rate in the format is 76.2%. Spiteful Hexmage has a win rate of 73.4%, making it 3.6% worse than other 1-mana cards.
Top Performing Partners
| Card Name | Type | Deck Count | Win Rate | 1st Places |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abrade | Instant | 5 | 90.3% | 3 |
| Thought-Stalker Warlock | Creature — Lizard Warlock | 5 | 80.0% | 4 |
| Knight of Grace | Creature — Human Knight | 42 | 75.3% | 25 |
| Surgical Suite/Hospital Room | Enchantment — Room // Enchantment — Room | 7 | 72.6% | 2 |
| Scrollshift | Instant | 15 | 70.2% | 5 |
| Sunpearl Kirin | Creature — Kirin | 45 | 69.9% | 16 |
| Tinybones Joins Up | Legendary Enchantment | 15 | 69.3% | 4 |
| Meticulous Excavation | Enchantment | 13 | 68.4% | 3 |
| Enduring Innocence | Enchantment Creature — Sheep Glimmer | 6 | 67.1% | 3 |
| Stock Up | Sorcery | 47 | 66.2% | 14 |
Card Synergy Analysis
Cards that perform better with Spiteful Hexmage 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temporary Lockdown | Enchantment | 3 | 9 | 78.3% | 72.7% | +5.5% |
| Ghost Vacuum | Artifact | 1 | 10 | 79.7% | 74.5% | +5.1% |
| Sheltered by Ghosts | Enchantment — Aura | 2 | 10 | 80.6% | 76.1% | +4.6% |
| Duress | Sorcery | 1 | 20 | 77.2% | 73.6% | +3.6% |
| Kaito, Bane of Nightmares | Legendary Planeswalker — Kaito | 4 | 23 | 75.4% | 73.2% | +2.2% |
| Rest in Peace | Enchantment | 2 | 41 | 72.9% | 71.7% | +1.2% |
| Loran of the Third Path | Legendary Creature — Human Artificer | 3 | 28 | 72.3% | 71.1% | +1.2% |
| No More Lies | Instant | 2 | 42 | 72.5% | 72.2% | +0.4% |
| Momentum Breaker | Enchantment | 2 | 36 | 73.3% | 73.0% | +0.3% |
| Stock Up | Sorcery | 3 | 32 | 74.6% | 74.6% | -0.0% |
Top Archetypes
| Archetype | Deck Count | % of Archetype | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Esper Pixie | 690 | 44.2% | 57.3% |
| Rakdos Sacrifice | 57 | 74.0% | 49.5% |
| Dimir Midrange | 7 | 0.3% | 48.5% |
| Unknown Archetype | 5 | 1.4% | 26.7% |
| Rakdos Cauldron | 4 | 50.0% | 25.0% |
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.