Top Performing Decklists
| Deck | Creator | Record | Best Finish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rakdos Aggro | stalonge | 7-1 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12769901 |
| Rakdos Aggro | bunnyfat | 7-2 | 1st in MTGO Standard Challenge 32 #12765740 |
| Gruul Leyline | 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 |
| Jund Delirium | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Rakdos Lizards | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Mardu Tokens | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Rakdos Reanimator | koskadelli | 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:
4 Color Omniscience , 5 Color Legends , Goblins , Grixis Bounce , Grixis Control , Grixis Crimes , Grixis Midrange , Grixis Monument , Grixis Reanimator , Grixis Teachings
Meta Performance Analysis
Sulfurous Springs 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, Sulfurous Springs 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: 44.19 (Win rate × Top 8 rate ÷ Mana value)
At 0 mana, the average win rate in the format is 74.4%. Sulfurous Springs has a win rate of 78.9%, making it 6.1% better than other 0-mana cards.
Top Performing Partners
| Card Name | Type | Deck Count | Win Rate | 1st Places |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wild Ride | Sorcery | 7 | 89.3% | 5 |
| Tersa Lightshatter | Legendary Creature — Orc Wizard | 12 | 87.2% | 7 |
| Cori-Steel Cutter | Artifact — Equipment | 15 | 77.3% | 8 |
| Demonic Ruckus | Enchantment — Aura | 12 | 71.0% | 3 |
| Desperate Measures | Instant | 16 | 70.8% | 6 |
| Furnace Reins | Sorcery | 22 | 68.8% | 8 |
| Chandra, Spark Hunter | Legendary Planeswalker — Chandra | 20 | 68.8% | 6 |
| Scavenger's Talent | Enchantment — Class | 5 | 67.3% | 1 |
| Quag Feast | Sorcery | 8 | 67.1% | 2 |
| Manifold Mouse | Creature — Mouse Soldier | 75 | 66.9% | 19 |
Card Synergy Analysis
Cards that perform better with Sulfurous Springs 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overlord of the Balemurk | Enchantment Creature — Avatar Horror | 5 | 11 | 85.9% | 77.5% | +8.4% |
| Tersa Lightshatter | Legendary Creature — Orc Wizard | 3 | 12 | 85.1% | 77.3% | +7.8% |
| Go for the Throat | Instant | 2 | 6 | 83.3% | 76.0% | +7.4% |
| Sheoldred, the Apocalypse | Legendary Creature — Phyrexian Praetor | 4 | 17 | 83.3% | 76.7% | +6.6% |
| Cut Down | Instant | 1 | 14 | 83.3% | 76.8% | +6.5% |
| Questing Druid | Creature — Human Druid // Instant — Adventure | 2 | 5 | 84.6% | 79.1% | +5.5% |
| Chandra, Spark Hunter | Legendary Planeswalker — Chandra | 4 | 11 | 83.6% | 78.2% | +5.4% |
| Wild Ride | Sorcery | 1 | 7 | 87.8% | 83.4% | +4.4% |
| Abrade | Instant | 2 | 13 | 84.1% | 80.2% | +4.0% |
| Urabrask's Forge | Artifact | 3 | 16 | 81.8% | 78.3% | +3.6% |
Top Archetypes
| Archetype | Deck Count | % of Archetype | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rakdos Sacrifice | 75 | 97.4% | 45.5% |
| Rakdos Aggro | 60 | 87.0% | 60.1% |
| Rakdos Reanimator | 39 | 97.5% | 48.6% |
| Unknown Archetype | 27 | 7.4% | 32.6% |
| Gruul Leyline | 27 | 14.1% | 66.3% |
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.