EFFICIENCY & EXECUTION
Offensive and defensive production, yards per play, available EPA inputs, pressure and takeaway proxies, and recent form.
Efficiency beyond the final score.Seven leagues. Different inputs. One connected research experience. Explore the work behind our team ratings, matchup analysis, and market comparisons.
League-specific performance and recent form.
Translate team strength into the game ahead.
Compare the model’s view with the available line.
A MODEL FOR EACH SPORT
A possession, a play, a run, and a goal tell different stories. Our rating paths reflect those differences. Input depth varies with data coverage; score-based fallbacks support teams when detailed inputs are unavailable.
Offensive and defensive production, yards per play, available EPA inputs, pressure and takeaway proxies, and recent form.
Efficiency beyond the final score.Football-specific offensive and defensive components, including success-rate inputs where available, feed team and matchup ratings.
Different opponents. Different context.Pace-adjusted offense and defense, rebounding, turnovers, and recent form form the detailed basketball rating path.
Separate efficiency from pace.The WNBA has its own league data and rating path, using pace-adjusted production, rebounding, turnovers, and recent form.
Evaluate teams within their league.Possession-based team ratings sit alongside a college-specific adjusted-efficiency pipeline with opponent adjustment, recency weighting, and shrinkage.
A familiar foundation, Viqtory’s implementation.Offense, starting pitching, bullpen, defense, and situational components use inputs such as OPS, ERA, WHIP, and recent run margin.
Pitching and run production matter.The shared rating engine uses completed-game scoring results, goals for and against, and recent form before the matchup layer.
A score-derived foundation for hockey.READING THE OUTPUT
These numbers answer different questions.
A measure of team strength within a model and league. An 80 rating does not mean an 80% chance to win.
A matchup-specific view of the teams and game context. Team strength is one input to the forecast.
The difference between the model’s view and the market reference. A disagreement identifies an angle to research; it does not guarantee a result.
VIQTORY & THE ESTABLISHED REFERENCES
KenPom is a natural comparison for college basketball. Across other leagues, the useful reference changes. This compares scope and methodology - not a verified accuracy ranking.
| Model | Coverage | Approach | How to use the comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viqtory | Seven league rating paths | League-specific inputs to team ratings to matchup context to a separate market comparison. | Connect team strength with the game and the research workflow. |
| KenPom | Mens college basketball | Opponent-adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency; adjusted efficiency margin expresses team strength. | A specialist benchmark for college basketball efficiency. |
| Bart Torvik / T-Rank | Mens college basketball | A predictive college basketball rating recognized by the NCAA alongside KenPom and BPI. | Another predictive perspective for college basketball evaluation. |
| ESPN BPI | Basketball | Forward-looking team quality. | A predictive basketball reference. |
| ESPN FPI | Football | Predictive football team strength. | A football forecasting reference. |
| NCAA NET | Division I basketball | Team Value Index and adjusted net efficiency combine quality of results with efficiency and game location. | A tournament-evaluation sorting tool; a different purpose from a market edge. |
Model names link to their publishers’ explanations. Sources reviewed September 6, 2026. Viqtory is independent of these organizations.
THE KENPOM QUESTION
KenPom evaluates college basketball through adjusted efficiency. Viqtory’s college pipeline also uses possession and opponent context, with its own recency, shrinkage, and conference adjustments. Similar ingredients do not produce an identical model.
Viqtory extends the experience across seven leagues and connects ratings to matchup research and market context. That breadth is a product distinction - not evidence of greater predictive accuracy. Read KenPom’s efficiency definitions.
HOW A FAIR COMPARISON WORKS
Our codebase includes historical audits and walk-forward evaluation tools. We have not established a verified, matched-game head-to-head result against the systems above.
Compare the same leagues, dates, and games, with the number of evaluated predictions clearly shown.
Use forecasts saved before the game and keep training data separate from evaluation. Later ratings cannot stand in for pregame predictions.
Evaluate probability calibration, scoring error, and winner accuracy separately. Market results also need the line, price, and timestamp.
PUT THE MODELS IN CONTEXT
Sports measure performance differently. Basketball possessions, baseball pitching, football efficiency, and hockey scoring context require different inputs rather than a single formula applied unchanged to every league.
Strength describes a team assessment. Probability estimates the chance of a defined outcome. Edge compares an estimate with a market price. None of these is a promise of profit.
Look for documented inputs, pregame snapshots, out-of-sample testing, and results on comparable games. Accuracy alone does not establish profitability, and selective winning examples are not a complete performance record.
No model should be assumed to include information that arrived after its data snapshot. Check current availability and the timing of the research before relying on it.