World Cup 2026 xG stat leaders
Expected-goals leaderboards for the 2026 World Cup across all completed xG-backed matches — a goals vs xG dashboard for who created the best chances, who finished above or below their xG, and who prevented chances best. The schedule columns add the average World Cup field rank and published FIFA rank of opponents already faced, so a strong xG line can be read against the path that produced it.
Across 104 xG-backed World Cup 2026 matches, teams have scored 308 goals from 271.04 expected goals (+36.96 goals versus xG).
Quick answers
- How many goals have teams scored compared with xG at the World Cup 2026?
- Across 104 xG-backed World Cup 2026 matches, teams have scored 308 goals from 271.04 expected goals (+36.96 goals versus xG).
- Who has the best xG difference at the World Cup 2026?
- Spain have the best total xG difference across completed xG-backed matches: +13.27 xGD from 15.63 xGF and 2.36 xGA.
- Who has created the most xG at the World Cup 2026?
- France lead the total xGF table with 17.53 expected goals created across completed xG-backed matches.
- Who has the best xG defence at the World Cup 2026?
- Spain have allowed the lowest total xGA among teams with completed xG-backed matches: 2.36 xGA.
- Who is finishing furthest above xG at the World Cup 2026?
- England are finishing furthest above xG at +5.66 goals above expected goals.
- Are these stat leaders group-stage only?
- No. This page uses total tournament xG across all completed xG-backed matches. Group-stage points and xPts remain separate on the standings and team pages.
Best xG difference
Best xG difference: Spain with +13.27 xGD.
Expected goals created minus conceded — the strongest underlying performances.
| # | Team | Grp | xGD | Avg opp field | Avg opp FIFA | xG vs schedule read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Spain | H | +13.27 | 17.6 / 48 | #23.1 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 2 | France | I | +9.19 | 18.6 / 48 | #22.8 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 3 | Argentina | J | +8.34 | 22.0 / 48 | #29.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 4 | Brazil | C | +8.00 | 24.2 / 48 | #34.4 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 5 | Canada | B | +6.46 | 27.2 / 48 | #38.8 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 6 | Germany | E | +5.08 | 31.8 / 48 | #43.0 | led xG against a lighter opponent field |
| 7 | England | L | +5.01 | 19.5 / 48 | #24.6 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 8 | Colombia | K | +4.30 | 27.4 / 48 | #37.4 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 9 | Switzerland | B | +3.42 | 24.3 / 48 | #32.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 10 | Senegal | I | +2.97 | 17.8 / 48 | #23.3 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
Best attack (xGF)
Best attack by xG: France with 17.53 xGF.
Most expected goals created.
| # | Team | Grp | xGF | Avg opp field | Avg opp FIFA | xG vs schedule read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | France | I | 17.53 | 18.6 / 48 | #22.8 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 2 | Spain | H | 15.63 | 17.6 / 48 | #23.1 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 3 | Argentina | J | 14.60 | 22.0 / 48 | #29.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 4 | England | L | 14.34 | 19.5 / 48 | #24.6 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 5 | Brazil | C | 12.02 | 24.2 / 48 | #34.4 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 6 | Belgium | G | 10.87 | 20.3 / 48 | #27.8 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 7 | Norway | I | 10.05 | 16.5 / 48 | #20.7 | level on xG against a strong opponent field |
| 8 | Canada | B | 9.71 | 27.2 / 48 | #38.8 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 9 | Switzerland | B | 9.68 | 24.3 / 48 | #32.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 10 | Senegal | I | 8.84 | 17.8 / 48 | #23.3 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
Best defence (xGA)
Best defence by xG: Spain, allowing only 2.36 xGA.
Fewest expected goals conceded.
| # | Team | Grp | xGA | Avg opp field | Avg opp FIFA | xG vs schedule read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Spain | H | 2.36 | 17.6 / 48 | #23.1 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 2 | Uruguay | H | 2.40 | 27.3 / 48 | #41.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 3 | South Korea | A | 2.52 | 27.0 / 48 | #37.3 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 4 | Colombia | K | 3.12 | 27.4 / 48 | #37.4 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 5 | Canada | B | 3.25 | 27.2 / 48 | #38.8 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 6 | Germany | E | 3.25 | 31.8 / 48 | #43.0 | led xG against a lighter opponent field |
| 7 | Japan | F | 3.54 | 20.5 / 48 | #27.0 | level on xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 8 | Netherlands | F | 3.60 | 22.5 / 48 | #29.3 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 9 | Turkiye | D | 3.63 | 23.3 / 48 | #26.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 10 | Ecuador | E | 3.72 | 24.0 / 48 | #33.8 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
Most clinical (goals − xG)
Most clinical finishing: England at +5.66 goals above xG.
Scoring the most above the value of their chances.
| # | Team | Grp | G − xG | Avg opp field | Avg opp FIFA | xG vs schedule read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | England | L | +5.66 | 19.5 / 48 | #24.6 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 2 | Netherlands | F | +5.52 | 22.5 / 48 | #29.3 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 3 | USA | D | +4.86 | 25.6 / 48 | #31.6 | level on xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 4 | Argentina | J | +4.40 | 22.0 / 48 | #29.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 5 | Japan | F | +3.74 | 20.5 / 48 | #27.0 | level on xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 6 | Mexico | A | +3.34 | 25.4 / 48 | #32.6 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 7 | Sweden | F | +3.32 | 16.3 / 48 | #21.5 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field |
| 8 | Belgium | G | +3.13 | 20.3 / 48 | #27.8 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 9 | Norway | I | +2.95 | 16.5 / 48 | #20.7 | level on xG against a strong opponent field |
| 10 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | B | +2.88 | 23.8 / 48 | #29.8 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
Most wasteful (xG − goals)
Most wasteful finishing: Ecuador at +3.87 goals below xG.
Scoring the most below the value of their chances.
| # | Team | Grp | xG − G | Avg opp field | Avg opp FIFA | xG vs schedule read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ecuador | E | +3.87 | 24.0 / 48 | #33.8 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 2 | Turkiye | D | +3.58 | 23.3 / 48 | #26.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 3 | Colombia | K | +2.42 | 27.4 / 48 | #37.4 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 4 | South Korea | A | +2.11 | 27.0 / 48 | #37.3 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 5 | Brazil | C | +2.02 | 24.2 / 48 | #34.4 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 6 | Panama | L | +1.94 | 20.3 / 48 | #27.3 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 7 | Spain | H | +1.63 | 17.6 / 48 | #23.1 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 8 | Scotland | C | +1.60 | 19.7 / 48 | #33.0 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field |
| 9 | Uruguay | H | +1.24 | 27.3 / 48 | #41.0 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 10 | Iran | G | +1.09 | 25.7 / 48 | #39.3 | level on xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
Most fortunate defence (xGA − conceded)
Most fortunate defence: Portugal at +2.84 goals better than xGA.
Conceding the fewest goals relative to the chances they allowed.
| # | Team | Grp | xGA − GA | Avg opp field | Avg opp FIFA | xG vs schedule read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Portugal | K | +2.84 | 19.4 / 48 | #25.2 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 2 | Scotland | C | +2.37 | 19.7 / 48 | #33.0 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field |
| 3 | Colombia | K | +2.12 | 27.4 / 48 | #37.4 | led xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 4 | Cape Verde | H | +2.07 | 15.0 / 48 | #20.3 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field |
| 5 | Morocco | C | +1.76 | 20.8 / 48 | #29.5 | level on xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 6 | Ghana | L | +1.55 | 15.5 / 48 | #18.0 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field |
| 7 | Spain | H | +1.36 | 17.6 / 48 | #23.1 | led xG against a strong opponent field |
| 8 | Ivory Coast | E | +1.30 | 24.8 / 48 | #34.5 | level on xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 9 | Egypt | G | +1.24 | 20.4 / 48 | #29.2 | trailed xG against a mid-ranked opponent field |
| 10 | Paraguay | D | +1.16 | 15.8 / 48 | #17.2 | trailed xG against a strong opponent field |
Knockout xG verdicts · Biggest xG robberies · Standings & xPts · Overperformers · The xG visualizer
Tournament totals so far — teams that have played more games will rank higher. xG is sourced from public post-match data; figures may differ from other providers.