Team Rankings
Explore complete teams ranked by observed Usage Rate. Compare the published population, then open a composition to inspect its evidence.
The Team Rankings page is built around answering one question:
Which teams are used most often across recent endgame content?
To answer that, we compare complete four-Character teams across up to the latest 3 published cycles. 2 cycles are currently available. Use Team Comp Finder to explore teams containing a particular Character.
- Eligibility:
A team needs at least 20 observations in at least one independent encounter context to appear. Once it qualifies, its count includes all accepted positive observations across the selected compatible contexts, including smaller fragments. Two samples of 19 alone do not qualify.
- Usage Rate:
A qualifying team's complete count divided by all 286,886 accepted team observations across the selected encounters, including unpublished teams. Counts are pooled before division; equal counts share a rank. Supported-context coverage still counts only contexts with at least 20 observations, not every positive fragment.
- Team identity:
The same four Characters form one team regardless of their order. Overall totals are not added to individual halves or battlefields, and overlapping Stygian difficulty samples are not counted twice.
- Scope:
Both halves of the highest available Abyss floor. These capped published lists show accepted team observations, not unique players or every team played. Absence from a list is not proof of zero use.
- Performance:
This ranking measures usage, not strength. Comparable performance and investment data are unavailable, so it has no Team Index or investment filter.
Data & sources
Data comes from YShelper public aggregate statistics. AstraVoy independently calculates the displayed statistics and creates their visualizations.
Cycle starts: 7.0 · Phase I (2026-08-16); 7.0 · Phase II (2026-09-16). Exact cycle end dates are unavailable.
View YShelperObserved team rankings
2 recent cycles, 286,886 observations, 844 eligible compositions
| Rank | Team | Usage Rate | Observations | Team evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #2440.05% Usage Rate |     | 0.05% | 146 observations | |
| #2420.05% Usage Rate |    | 0.05% | 147 observations | |
| #2420.05% Usage Rate |   | 0.05% | 147 observations | |
| #2410.05% Usage Rate |  | 0.05% | 148 observations | |
| #2400.05% Usage Rate |    | 0.05% | 149 observations | |
| #2390.05% Usage Rate |    | 0.05% | 150 observations | |
| #2380.05% Usage Rate |   | 0.05% | 151 observations | |
| #2360.05% Usage Rate |     | 0.05% | 152 observations | |
| #2360.05% Usage Rate |    | 0.05% | 152 observations | |
| #2350.05% Usage Rate |    | 0.05% | 154 observations | |
| #2340.05% Usage Rate | | 0.05% | 156 observations | |
| #2330.05% Usage Rate | | 0.05% | 157 observations | |
| #2310.06% Usage Rate |   | 0.06% | 158 observations | |
| #2310.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 158 observations | |
| #2290.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 159 observations | |
| #2290.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 159 observations | |
| #2280.06% Usage Rate |    | 0.06% | 160 observations | |
| #2270.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 161 observations | |
| #2240.06% Usage Rate |   | 0.06% | 163 observations | |
| #2240.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 163 observations | |
| #2240.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 163 observations | |
| #2220.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 164 observations | |
| #2220.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 164 observations | |
| #2200.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 165 observations | |
| #2200.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 165 observations | |
| #2160.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 166 observations | |
| #2160.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 166 observations | |
| #2160.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 166 observations | |
| #2160.06% Usage Rate |   | 0.06% | 166 observations | |
| #2140.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 167 observations | |
| #2140.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 167 observations | |
| #2120.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 168 observations | |
| #2120.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 168 observations | |
| #2100.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 169 observations | |
| #2100.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 169 observations | |
| #2080.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 170 observations | |
| #2080.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 170 observations | |
| #2060.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 171 observations | |
| #2060.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 171 observations | |
| #2050.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 172 observations | |
| #2030.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 176 observations | |
| #2030.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 176 observations | |
| #2000.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 177 observations | |
| #2000.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 177 observations | |
| #2000.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 177 observations | |
| #1990.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 178 observations | |
| #1980.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 179 observations | |
| #1960.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 181 observations | |
| #1960.06% Usage Rate |  | 0.06% | 181 observations | |
| #1940.06% Usage Rate | | 0.06% | 183 observations |