Numbers you can check, not just trust.
FDVS is a football analytics platform built by Beta Web Analysis Limited — a six-axis rating system behind every club, AI-assisted analysis reviewed by a human desk before it publishes, and a results archive that shows every miss alongside every hit.
What we actually do
Six-axis ratings
Every tracked club is rated across Attack, Defense, Form, xG, Set Pieces and Discipline — not one blended number, but a genuine shape you can read at a glance.
AI-assisted, human-reviewed
AI does the cross-referencing at a scale no team could manage fixture by fixture. A human analyst checks and formats every output before it publishes — nothing goes live unreviewed.
Consensus, not a black box
Our headline numbers blend up to 40 tracked sources into one consensus read — visible in full on Pro, summarized everywhere else, never presented as a single unexplainable verdict.
An honest results archive
Every graded fixture stays on the results page — hit or miss — because a record that only kept the wins wouldn't be a record worth trusting.
Where we operate
Why we built a platform that shows its work, not just its conclusions
A confident number without anything behind it is easy to produce and easy to forget. We'd rather build something slower to read and actually worth trusting, even if that means a smaller headline and a longer page.
Most football analysis online reduces to a single confident claim — a tip, a prediction, a percentage with nothing behind it. We built FDVS around the opposite instinct: show the layers underneath a number, so the number means something beyond "trust us." A six-axis rating, a visible consensus, a results archive that keeps its misses — none of that is dramatic, but all of it is checkable. That's the standard we'd rather be held to than a bigger claim we couldn't actually back up, and it's the same standard we'd want applied to us by anyone reading this page.
Why six axes instead of one score
A single power rating is easy to read but hides everything interesting — whether a club's strength comes from attack or defense, whether it's balanced or lopsided, whether a rating is built on a real trend or a lucky run. Six axes take longer to read than one number, but they tell you something a single score structurally can't. We still publish a single Overall score too, on Club Rankings, because sometimes a quick comparison is genuinely what you need — but it's never the only number available, and it's always built from the same six axes rather than a separate, less transparent calculation.
Why AI does the scale, and people do the judgment
Cross-referencing forty sources across every tracked fixture, every day, is a scale problem no human team could handle fixture by fixture. That's what AI is actually good at. Judging whether a specific claim holds up, catching where the data doesn't tell the full story, deciding what's actually worth publishing — that stays with a person. Neither replaces the other; each does the part it's genuinely suited for. We've built that division deliberately rather than letting either side quietly take over the other's job, because the moment a human reviewer starts rubber-stamping AI output without actually checking it, the review stops meaning anything, and we'd rather keep it meaning something.
Why we publish our misses
A platform that only shows its wins isn't giving you a record, it's giving you a highlight reel. Publishing every graded fixture — including the ones the consensus got wrong — is the only way our accuracy claims mean anything. It's also the only way we can actually check our own calibration: whether a 70% consensus really wins close to seven times in ten requires counting every outcome in that band, not just the flattering ones. If our own numbers ever drift out of calibration, we'd rather find that out from our own results archive than have someone else point it out first — that's the whole reason the archive exists in a checkable form rather than as a marketing summary.
Why we're honest about being a work in progress
Coverage keeps expanding — more leagues, more markets, more currencies for more countries — and we'd rather say plainly what's live today and what's still being built than overstate where things stand. A newly added league gets treated with the same caution as anything else with a thin sample, and features still in preview are labeled as such rather than presented as finished. We'd rather a feature look unfinished honestly than look complete dishonestly, even when the honest version is less impressive to look at on the day it launches.
Who we're building this for
Anyone who wants to actually understand a fixture, not just be told what to think about it — whether that's checking a consensus number before a match, comparing two teams' six-axis profiles, or digging into the raw sources behind a rating on Pro. The depth is there for whoever wants it; it's never required to get real value out of the free tier. Free was built to be a genuinely complete product on its own, not a limited preview of what the real platform looks like — the deeper tiers add layers, they don't gate the basics behind a paywall.
Where this is headed
More leagues, deeper historical coverage, and pricing that reflects what a subscription is actually worth in each market we serve — rather than one flat number converted at whatever the exchange rate happens to be that week. Growth here means covering more of football honestly, not covering it faster at the expense of the checking process that makes any of this worth reading in the first place. A feature we're not confident in yet stays unlaunched rather than shipped early and quietly fixed later.