Skip to content
Compare Brann vs Thun

Brann vs Thun Head-to-Head Stats and Form Comparison

Compare Brann vs Thun: head-to-head stats, recent form, goals, defensive record and strength indicators from last matches.

Brann Brann Home Team
Thun Thun Away Team
Brann
45.1
W W D L L W L L L L

Last 10 Matches

Thun
41.4
L L L W L L W W D W

Categories Won

9

Brann

2

Draw

4

Thun

Performance Radar

Brann
Thun

Statistical Comparison

Win Percentage
30%

3W, 1D, 6L

40%

4W, 1D, 5L

Goals Scored / Match
1.9

19 / 10 matches

1.6

16 / 10 matches

Goals Conceded / Match
1.4

14 / 10 matches

1.5

15 / 10 matches

Goal Difference
+5

+5

+1

+1

Clean Sheet
10%

1 / 10 matches

0%

0 / 10 matches

Over 2.5 Goals
60%

6 / 10 matches

70%

7 / 10 matches

Both Teams to Score
60%

6 / 10 matches

70%

7 / 10 matches

Top Scorer
K. Ingason (4 goals)
E. Rastoder (3 goals)
Most Goals by Half
1st Half: 10 / 2nd Half: 9
1st Half: 7 / 2nd Half: 9
Home Win Rate
25%

1W / 4 matches

60%

3W / 5 matches

Away Win Rate
33%

2W / 6 matches

20%

1W / 5 matches

Schedule Strength (SoS)
42.3

League Difficulty: 57.0, Opponent Quality: 55.6

37.5

League Difficulty: 49.0, Opponent Quality: 51.2

Elite Opponent Record
0%

0W / 1 matches

0%

0W / 1 matches

Expected Goals (xG)
2.14

Actual: 1.9 | Diff: -0.24

1.37

Actual: 1.6 | Diff: +0.23

Adjusted Power Rating
45.1

Attack: 58.5, Defense: 49.2, Form: 27.7

41.4

Attack: 46.7, Defense: 43.8, Form: 35.0

Goal Timing Analysis

1

0-15'

3

16-30'

3
5

31-45'

4
4

46-60'

4
2

61-75'

3
4

76-90+'

2
Brann
Thun
Brann

Power Rating Breakdown

45.1

Overall

Attack 58.5
Defense 49.2
Form 27.7
Consistency 46.0
Thun

Power Rating Breakdown

41.4

Overall

Attack 46.7
Defense 43.8
Form 35.0
Consistency 39.7

Strength of Schedule

Measures the difficulty of opponents faced. Higher = tougher schedule.

League Difficulty

57.0 vs 49.0

Opponent Quality

55.6 vs 51.2

Elite Opponent Record

0% vs 0%
Brann logo Brann
W
Fredrikstad (39%)
W
Tromsø (68%)
D
Rosenborg (46%)
L
Viking (70%)
L
Sandefjord (50%)
W
HamKam (55%)
L
Tromsø (63%)
L
Kristiansund (48%)
Thun logo Thun
L
Sion (70%)
L
Basel (55%)
L
Lugano (54%)
W
Basel (50%)
L
Lugano (55%)
L
Zürich (38%)
W
GC Zürich (27%)
W
Young Boys (56%)

Opponent Quality: Quality blends league strength, recent points form, goal difference, and home/away context. It is not only club size or reputation.

Opponent Breakdown
Opponent Breakdown
Score
Opp. Quality
Fredrikstad H
3 - 1 W
39%
Tromsø A
5 - 0 W
68%
Rosenborg A
1 - 1 D
46%
Viking A
2 - 3 L
70%
Sandefjord H
0 - 1 L
50%
HamKam A
5 - 1 W
55%
Tromsø H
1 - 2 L
63%
Kristiansund A
2 - 3 L
48%
Bologna A
0 - 1 L
61%
Bologna H
0 - 1 L
56%
Opponent Breakdown
Opponent Breakdown
Score
Opp. Quality
Sion A
0 - 2 L
70%
Basel A
1 - 3 L
55%
Lugano H
0 - 1 L
54%
Basel H
3 - 1 W
50%
Lugano A
0 - 1 L
55%
Zürich A
1 - 2 L
38%
GC Zürich H
5 - 1 W
27%
Young Boys A
2 - 1 W
56%
St.Gallen H
2 - 2 D
55%
Luzern H
2 - 1 W
52%

AI Analysis

This is a fascinating matchup between two evenly-matched teams. The raw numbers tell one story, but the opponent quality analysis adds crucial context.

Both teams have faced similar levels of opposition (SoS: 42.3 vs 37.5), making the raw statistics a reliable basis for comparison.

Both teams are evenly matched in attack, with Brann averaging 1.9 and Thun averaging 1.6 goals per match.

Both defenses are comparable, with Brann conceding 1.4 and Thun conceding 1.5 per match.

Based on the combined statistics, expect 3.2 total goals. Over 2.5 goals is the statistical lean, with both teams to score being likely.

Match Simulator

AI-powered match simulation based on real statistics

Brann

Brann

VS
Thun

Thun

In H2H (head-to-head) matchups, to eliminate momentary fluctuations and coincidences, we limit our analyses to an optimal depth of exactly 10 matches. Neither less, nor more. This focused approach is our undisputed gold standard, revealing the tactical and psychological supremacy teams hold over each other in its purest form. We do not dwell on the noise of the past; we concentrate on the millimetric precision of current form.

Compare Another Pair

Popular Teams

We use cookies & local storage to enhance your experience. Learn more