Every team, every player
Esports rankings are built differently from traditional sport league tables. There are no fixed seasons, no home-and-away records, and no unified governing body that mandates a single ranking system across all titles. Instead, rankings emerge from weighted algorithms that account for tournament results, opponent strength, map depth, recency, and title-specific metrics. A team that wins a CS2 Major against top-5 opposition earns more ranking points than a team that sweeps a regional qualifier against tier-2 opponents. The difficulty of your opponents matters as much as the results themselves.
Krontiv tracks team and player rankings across Counter-Strike 2, Valorant, League of Legends, and Dota 2. Where possible, we apply cross-title normalisation to allow readers to compare performance profiles — but we are transparent about the limitations of any such comparison. Different games measure different things in different competitive ecosystems.
CS2 team rankings: top 20
CS2 team rankings are built from a weighted algorithm that accounts for tournament results, opponent strength, map depth, and recency. A team that wins a Major against top-5 opposition earns more than a team that wins a regional event against tier-2 opponents.
| Pos | Team | Rating | Win% | Map Pool | Best Map | W/L (3mo) | Form |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Team A | 1.18 | 78.4% | 6 maps | Inferno (84%) | 42-8 | |
| 2 | Team B | 1.14 | 74.2% | 5 maps | Mirage (81%) | 38-12 | |
| 3 | Team C | 1.11 | 72.8% | 6 maps | Nuke (79%) | 36-14 | |
| 4 | Team D | 1.08 | 70.6% | 5 maps | Anubis (77%) | 34-16 | |
| 5 | Team E | 1.06 | 68.2% | 4 maps | Dust2 (82%) | 31-19 | |
| 6 | Team F | 1.04 | 66.8% | 5 maps | Ancient (76%) | 30-20 | |
| 7 | Team G | 1.02 | 65.4% | 4 maps | Vertigo (78%) | 28-22 | |
| 8 | Team H | 1.00 | 63.2% | 5 maps | Inferno (74%) | 26-24 | |
| 9 | Team I | 0.98 | 61.8% | 4 maps | Mirage (75%) | 24-26 | |
| 10 | Team J | 0.96 | 60.2% | 3 maps | Nuke (80%) | 22-28 | |
| 11 | Team K | 0.95 | 59.4% | 4 maps | Dust2 (76%) | 21-29 | |
| 12 | Team L | 0.94 | 58.6% | 5 maps | Mirage (74%) | 20-30 | |
| 13 | Team M | 0.93 | 57.8% | 4 maps | Inferno (72%) | 19-31 | |
| 14 | Team N | 0.92 | 56.4% | 3 maps | Anubis (75%) | 18-32 | |
| 15 | Team O | 0.91 | 55.8% | 5 maps | Ancient (73%) | 17-33 | |
| 16 | Team P | 0.90 | 54.6% | 4 maps | Vertigo (74%) | 16-34 | |
| 17 | Team Q | 0.89 | 53.2% | 3 maps | Dust2 (78%) | 15-35 | |
| 18 | Team R | 0.88 | 52.4% | 4 maps | Nuke (72%) | 14-36 | |
| 19 | Team S | 0.87 | 51.6% | 3 maps | Mirage (71%) | 13-37 | |
| 20 | Team T | 0.86 | 50.8% | 3 maps | Inferno (70%) | 12-38 |
Team A’s 6-map pool is the deepest on the circuit — meaning opponents cannot exploit a map ban to force them onto unfamiliar territory. Team J’s 3-map pool is the shallowest in the top 10: elite on Nuke (80%) but vulnerable to a well-prepared veto. Map depth is the clearest separator between tier-1 consistency and tier-1 upset potential.
CS2 player stats: top 5
HLTV Rating 2.0 is a composite metric that weights kills, deaths, assists, first kills, clutch wins, and flash assists into a single number. A rating of 1.00 is average; above 1.10 is strong; above 1.20 is elite.
| Pos | Player | Team | Rating | ADR | HS% | FK% | Clutch% | KDA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Player A | Team A | 1.32 | 88.4 | 54.2% | 18.6% | 14.2% | 1.48 |
| 2 | Player B | Team B | 1.28 | 84.6 | 48.8% | 16.4% | 12.8% | 1.42 |
| 3 | Player C | Team A | 1.24 | 82.2 | 52.1% | 14.8% | 10.6% | 1.36 |
| 4 | Player D | Team C | 1.21 | 80.8 | 46.4% | 15.2% | 11.4% | 1.32 |
| 5 | Player E | Team D | 1.18 | 78.6 | 58.6% | 12.4% | 8.2% | 1.28 |
Player E’s 58.6% headshot rate — the highest in the top 5 — reveals a pure aimer. Player A’s 14.2% clutch rate reveals something different: the ability to win rounds alone under maximum pressure. Both produce elite ratings, but through entirely different skill profiles.
Full CS2 team and player rankings with HLTV rating 2.0, ADR, headshot percentage, map pool analysis, and three-month form data. Updated after every major event.
Valorant team rankings use a VLR-style composite rating that weights match results, ACS averages, first blood rates, and opponent strength. The agent composition column reveals each team’s preferred duelist — a proxy for playstyle identity.
| Pos | Team | Rating | Win% | ACS | FB% | Primary Duelist | Form |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Team V1 | 1.22 | 76.8% | 248.4 | 22.1% | Jett | |
| 2 | Team V2 | 1.18 | 73.4% | 241.6 | 20.4% | Raze | |
| 3 | Team V3 | 1.14 | 70.2% | 236.8 | 18.8% | Jett | |
| 4 | Team V4 | 1.10 | 68.6% | 232.2 | 17.6% | Neon | |
| 5 | Team V5 | 1.08 | 66.4% | 228.6 | 16.2% | Raze | |
| 6 | Team V6 | 1.04 | 64.2% | 224.4 | 15.4% | Jett | |
| 7 | Team V7 | 1.02 | 62.8% | 220.8 | 14.8% | Neon | |
| 8 | Team V8 | 1.00 | 60.6% | 216.4 | 14.2% | Raze | |
| 9 | Team V9 | 0.98 | 58.4% | 212.2 | 13.6% | Jett | |
| 10 | Team V10 | 0.96 | 56.8% | 208.6 | 12.8% | Raze |
Team V1’s 22.1% first blood percentage is the highest in the top 10 — their Jett player opens rounds at nearly twice the rate of Team V10’s duelist. In Valorant, first blood correlates with a 68% round win rate, making opening duels the single most predictive metric in the game.
League of Legends team rankings across LEC, LCS, LCK, and LPL. Champion pick/ban rates, gold differentials, dragon control, and vision score metrics.
Dota 2 team rankings with DPC points, hero pick rates, net worth graphs, and team fight contribution data. The International qualification tracking.
“The map pool depth column changed how I think about team rankings. A team with a 6-map pool is fundamentally more dangerous than one with 3, regardless of peak rating.”
— C.
“I run an esports podcast and Krontiv is my pre-event research tool. The player stat comparisons are exactly what I need to prepare informed questions.”
— H.