Top Performing Decklists
| Deck | Creator | Record | Best Finish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unknown Archetype | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Golgari Obliterator | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Domain Zur Overlords | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Sultai Roots | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Temur Beanstalk | platinum-mythic rank player | 6-0 | 1st in Traditional Standard Ranked Decklists: April 14, 2025 |
| Golgari Midrange | vitorcarvalho01 | 7-2 | None |
| Golgari Midrange | pnutz47 | 6-2 | None |
| Golgari Midrange | dr4ken | 6-2 | None |
| Domain Zur Overlords | eresopacaso | 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:
4 Color Beanstalk , 5 Color Legends , Abzan Beanstalk , Abzan Doubling , Abzan Midrange , Abzan Reanimator , Abzan Roots , Bant Beanstalk , Bant Control , Dimir Bounce
Meta Performance Analysis
Tear Asunder ranks #155 out of approximately 406 cards in raw efficiency (top 38%).
Game Impact Factor
Color Differential
Green average: 65.6%
Performance compared to other Green cardsBased on our comprehensive multi-metric analysis, Tear Asunder 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: 28.88 (Win rate × Top 8 rate ÷ Mana value)
At 2 mana, the average win rate in the format is 74.7%. Tear Asunder has a win rate of 75.4%, making it 1.0% better than other 2-mana cards.
Top Performing Partners
| Card Name | Type | Deck Count | Win Rate | 1st Places |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Royal Treatment | Instant | 14 | 75.9% | 6 |
| Locust Spray | Instant | 8 | 71.5% | 4 |
| Lord Skitter, Sewer King | Legendary Creature — Rat Noble | 10 | 69.4% | 3 |
| Spinewoods Armadillo | Creature — Armadillo | 11 | 67.3% | 6 |
| Lumbering Worldwagon | Artifact — Vehicle | 22 | 65.1% | 10 |
| Keen-Eyed Curator | Creature — Raccoon Scout | 9 | 58.0% | 1 |
| Shoot the Sheriff | Instant | 108 | 55.8% | 33 |
| Vinereap Mentor | Creature — Squirrel Druid | 5 | 55.4% | 1 |
| Wrenn and Realmbreaker | Legendary Planeswalker — Wrenn | 16 | 55.4% | 1 |
| The Speed Demon | Legendary Creature — Demon | 32 | 55.3% | 13 |
Card Synergy Analysis
Cards that perform better with Tear Asunder 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% | 79.2% | +20.8% |
| Lumbering Worldwagon | Artifact — Vehicle | 3 | 7 | 100.0% | 87.7% | +12.3% |
| The Speed Demon | Legendary Creature — Demon | 5 | 5 | 100.0% | 87.7% | +12.3% |
| Outrageous Robbery | Instant | 2 | 5 | 85.7% | 75.9% | +9.8% |
| Surrak, Elusive Hunter | Legendary Creature — Human Warrior | 3 | 8 | 85.3% | 76.4% | +8.9% |
| Deadly Cover-Up | Sorcery | 5 | 7 | 86.7% | 78.4% | +8.3% |
| Gix's Command | Sorcery | 5 | 27 | 79.5% | 73.5% | +5.9% |
| Shoot the Sheriff | Instant | 2 | 12 | 83.9% | 79.1% | +4.7% |
| The End | Instant | 4 | 7 | 81.6% | 76.9% | +4.7% |
| Unholy Annex/Ritual Chamber | Enchantment — Room // Enchantment — Room | 8 | 23 | 80.1% | 75.7% | +4.4% |
Top Archetypes
| Archetype | Deck Count | % of Archetype | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Golgari Midrange | 752 | 96.8% | 46.9% |
| Domain Zur Overlords | 675 | 51.5% | 48.7% |
| Golgari Demons | 534 | 98.0% | 46.3% |
| Simic Terror | 182 | 59.3% | 42.4% |
| Unknown Archetype | 46 | 12.7% | 36.7% |
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.