In This Guide

1. The Problem: Managing What You Cannot Measure
2. The Core Approach: Metrics That Predict, Not Just Describe
3. The Metrics: Eventing and Show Jumping
4. Working with High-Performance Teams
5. The High-Performance Product Suite
6. Medal Standard Benchmarking and Gap Analysis
7. Working with Governing Bodies
8. Frequently Asked Questions
9. Further Reading
10. Related Guides
    

Introduction

Basic statistics in equestrian sport are useful but also often flawed because the variance in quality from one competition to another makes raw numbers misleading. A win at one event is not the same as a win at another. A clear round on an easy track is not equivalent to a clear round at a five-star championship. Results describe what happened. They do not explain whether performance is improving, what the gap to a medal looks like in specific numbers, or whether the approach a programme is taking is actually working.

EquiRatings was built to solve this. Powered by a combination of data science and Olympic equestrian experience, EquiRatings designs metrics that account for these unique features of the sport, replacing the statistics that flatter and deceive with metrics that matter and predict. The work spans two distinct client groups: high-performance teams and national federations who need to manage and improve performance, and governing bodies who need to manage and protect the sport itself.

 

1. The Problem: Managing What You Cannot Measure

Most high-performance programmes do not have a selection problem. They have a performance problem  and they do not know it, because they have no objective way to measure whether they are improving.

Qualitative language dominates equestrian high-performance. Horses described as reliable or consistent. Riders praised for delivering on the big stage. These descriptions are not wrong, but without measurement they cannot be verified, tracked over time, or used to identify where the gap to championship standard actually lies. A manager might believe a programme is improving. Without metrics, they cannot confirm it, quantify by how much, or direct training focus at the specific constraint holding them back.

 "The problem in equestrian sports is that there is no accurate, meaningful measurement of performance. People naturally built a barrier against data because the danger of overly simple, existing metrics misleading us outweighed the advantages. EquiRatings designed algorithms that account for these unique features - to create metrics that matter and replace the metrics that flatter and deceive." - Sam Watson, EquiRatings co-founder

At the governing body level, the equivalent problem is different but structurally similar. Sports organisations sit on large reservoirs of performance and competition data. Most of it is not being used - not to understand risk, not to measure participation trends, not to make the sport more engaging for fans or more commercially valuable for partners. Data that could be driving better decisions sits unused because no framework exists to make it actionable.

EquiRatings addresses both problems with the same underlying approach: gather, review, and enrich results data, then apply scientific methodology to transform it into meaningful metrics - ones designed specifically to improve predictive accuracy and support better decisions.

 

2. The Core Approach: Metrics That Predict, Not Just Describe

The distinction EquiRatings draws is between statistics and metrics. Statistics describe what happened in the past. Metrics explain performance and predict future outcomes. Past performance only matters if it tells us about future performance and the metrics EquiRatings builds are designed and refined specifically to improve that predictive capability.

This means every metric in the EquiRatings system is tested against real outcomes. The Elo rating is designed and refined to optimise predictive capability - horses with higher Elo ratings have demonstrably higher expected future performance. At CSI5* 160 level in jumping, horses with an Elo above 790 jumped clear at a rate of 57% across more than 14,000 rounds analysed, compared to just 5% for horses below 510. The gradient across every Elo bracket is measurable and consistent. The metric works.

The same principle applies to the HPR, to Win Chance, to CAS and PAS. Each is designed not to provide a satisfying number but to provide a number that predicts what happens next. That predictive foundation is what makes EquiRatings' data useful for decisions rather than just interesting as a description of the past.

 

3. The Metrics: Eventing and Show Jumping

EquiRatings' high-performance metrics cover both eventing and show jumping, with discipline-specific variants reflecting the different competitive structures of each sport. For full technical definitions of all metrics, see the EquiRatings Guide to Performance Metrics & Predictive Analytics.

Shared across both disciplines 

1. EquiRatings Elo: A dynamic rating updated after every international competition, measuring competitive strength based on who a horse beats and the quality of the opposition - not just finishing position. The Elo rewards the art of performing on demand rather than accumulating points. Unlike FEI world rankings, the Elo drops when performance drops, making it a more honest and current read of a horse's true competitive level.
2. High Performance Rating (HPR) - Measures the quality of a single performance, adjusted for field strength, course difficulty, and the competitive conditions on the day. Functions as the stopwatch of equestrian sport - it shows athletes not just where they finished but how strong that performance actually was. The highest HPR values come from championship wins and Grand Prix victories at the most competitive venues. Used as the primary development metric and the basis for gap analysis against championship standards.
3. Win Chance / Clear Chance: The probability of success — win, podium, or clear round — for each combination or nation in a given competition. Derived from Monte Carlo simulation across 10,000 runs of the event. Used in team selection simulations to model probability distributions across different squad configurations.
4. Zone Analysis: A performance visualisation tool showing the balance between risk (negative results) and reward (positive results) for a horse based on their full career or a defined recent period. In show jumping, it can be filtered to all international competition at 150 level and above, or CSI5* 160 only. In eventing, it can be filtered by level (CCI4*, CCI4*), by finishing scores, or by HPR and further filtered by rider to isolate performance under a specific combination. Across both disciplines it provides a clear read of whether a horse's profile is predominantly positive, balanced, or risk-heavy, and how that profile has changed over time.

Eventing-specific metrics

1. Completion Rate: The percentage of international starts resulting in a completed score across all three phases. Under the current three-rider, no-drop-score Olympic and World Championship format, completion rate is one of the most heavily weighted selection criteria. A non-completion is almost always decisive at team championship level.
2. Simple Metrics: Phase-specific metrics that break eventing performance down by discipline. 6RA measures average dressage scores across the last six international tests. XCJ10 tracks cross-country jumping reliability over the last ten international rounds. TSP is used to measure speed by looking at the number of opponents a horse has outpaced. SJ6 Adjusted measures show jumping fault averages against the difficulty of the courses competed on. These feed directly into Win Chance modelling and gap analysis.

Show jumping-specific metrics

1. Clears Against Standard (CAS): Measures how much better or worse a horse or rider has been jumping compared to the course averages on the same tracks. Can be applied over a recent period to assess current form, or filtered to a specific level — such as CSI5* 160 only — to assess performance at the top of the sport. Positive CAS indicates a horse jumping above the difficulty of the courses they are competing on.
2. Penalties Against Standard (PAS): The equivalent of CAS using jumping faults rather than clear rounds. Useful for distinguishing between a horse that concedes a single rail regularly versus one that accumulates multiple faults when not clear — a meaningful difference in team-selection and development terms.

 

4. Working with High-Performance Teams

EquiRatings works with national high-performance programmes across both eventing and show jumping providing the objective measurement infrastructure that allows a programme to move from managing performance subjectively to managing it with evidence. Clients include the FEI, British Eventing, US Equestrian, and national programmes across Europe and beyond.

The core value proposition has two dimensions. The first is better decision-making: selection decisions backed by data, gap analyses that direct training focus toward actual constraints, team simulations that model trade-offs before they become selection arguments.

The second is transformation: just seeing objective data on a regular basis changes how athletes approach their own development. When a rider can see precisely where their metrics sit relative to their championship target, they set goals differently and pursue them more purposefully.

 

 

5. The High-Performance Dashboard in Detail

The HP Dashboard is the central tool through which high-performance clients access and track their data on an ongoing basis. It is interactive and continuously updated — not a periodic snapshot — meaning it always reflects the most current competitive picture.

The Dashboard is built around seven functional areas, each answering a different management question:

 

The Team Selector tab is particularly significant for no-drop-score championship formats, where every horse's result counts. It allows managers to model the specific trade-off between selecting the high-ceiling specialist and the consistent banker — not as a matter of judgement, but as a quantified probability comparison. The data does not make the decision. It makes the trade-offs visible and measurable.

 

6. Medal Standard Benchmarking and Gap Analysis

Before a programme can close a gap to championship level, it needs to know precisely what that gap is - not in general terms, but phase by phase, in the specific numbers a podium historically requires.

EquiRatings calculates medal standards for all major championship formats across both eventing and show jumping — Olympic Games, FEI World Championships, FEI European Championships at Senior, Under-25, Young Rider, and Junior level — from the actual results of multiple editions. The standards are expressed as concrete benchmarks: the Elo level, dressage average, cross-country completion profile, and show jumping reliability that a podium finish has historically required at each level.

Gap analysis

Gap analysis compares those standards against a squad's current metrics, phase by phase. It identifies precisely where the shortfall is and by how much - whether it is a dressage deficit, a show jumping clear rate that is statistically too low for a no-drop-score format, an Elo level below the threshold historically associated with championship competitiveness, or a cross-country completion rate that does not support a team format.

The answers direct training focus and selection toward the actual constraint. They also provide the objective basis for conversations between managers, coaches, and athletes about what specifically needs to change - in numbers, over a defined timeline, with a measurable target to work toward.

 

7. Working with Governing Bodies

Within a sport's data sit the stories that fuel growth and the risks that must be measured, managed, and protected against. For equestrian governing bodies, this dual nature of data is crucial — and it is a different challenge to the one facing a national high-performance team.

A governing body is not primarily trying to win medals. It is trying to grow a sport, protect its athletes and horses, maintain public confidence, attract commercial partnerships, and ensure the integrity and sustainability of the competitive structure. Each of these challenges has a data dimension — and most governing bodies are not yet extracting the value that their data could provide.

EquiRatings works with governing bodies across six service areas:

 

The governing body relationship is built on the same foundational principle as the high-performance team relationship: data should be actionable, not just descriptive. The difference is in what action it enables - for a governing body, the actions are about growing and protecting the sport rather than winning within it.

 

8. Frequently Asked Questions

Does EquiRatings work with both eventing and jumping high-performance programmes?

Yes. EquiRatings' high-performance work covers both eventing and show jumping across the full product suite - HP Dashboard, Reports, Rider Pathway consultations, and Live Championship Support. The metrics differ by discipline (completion rate and phase-specific XC metrics for eventing; CAS, PAS, and Zone Analysis more prominent in show jumping) but the framework is the same across both.

What is the High Performance Dashboard?

An online, interactive platform giving high-performance clients direct access to their squad's KPIs - Elo, HPR, Win/Clear Chance, Zone Analysis, phase metrics, completion rate. Organised around seven tabs: My Team, My Horses, My Athletes, Venues, Elo Ratings, Zone Analysis, and Team Selector. Updated continuously as results are processed.

Why does EquiRatings use its own Elo rather than FEI world rankings?

The FEI world ranking rewards positive results but is not affected by poor ones. The EquiRatings Elo drops when performance drops - making it a more honest, current read of a horse's actual competitive level. It also accounts for the quality of opposition beaten, meaning a win against strong fields is worth more than a win in weaker competition. This makes it significantly more predictive of future performance.

What is the difference between CAS and PAS?

Both measure performance relative to course averages on the same tracks. CAS (Clears Against Standard) uses clear rounds; PAS (Penalties Against Standard) uses jumping faults. PAS is useful for distinguishing between a horse that drops one rail occasionally versus one that accumulates multiple faults when not clear - a significant difference in team-selection terms.

What is the medal standard?

The objective benchmark derived from historical championship data defining what a podium performance at a given level requires in specific numbers - phase by phase. EquiRatings calculates medal standards for all major eventing and show jumping championships, from Junior Europeans to the Olympic Games, and uses them as the baseline for all gap analysis and programme planning.

What is gap analysis?

The process of comparing a squad's current metrics against the medal standard for their target championship, phase by phase. It identifies precisely where the shortfall is and by how much — directing training and selection toward the actual constraint rather than general improvement.

What is the Team Selector?

A tab within the HP Dashboard allowing managers to model different team configurations and generate probability distributions — likelihood of reaching a target score, probability of non-completion, medal probability under each scenario. Turns a selection decision into a quantified trade-off analysis.

What does Mediation and Arbitration mean in practice?

When a team or squad selection decision is disputed by a rider or owner, EquiRatings provides documented, objective data analysis showing how the metrics behind the decision compare to the medal standard and to the selected alternatives. This provides a defensible, transparent basis for the decision and removes the perception of personal bias.

How does EquiRatings help with funding applications?

EquiRatings helps clients prepare performance reports for government funding bodies, sponsors, and partners — translating complex equestrian performance data into clear, objective evidence of progress and potential for audiences with no specialist knowledge of the sport.

What does EquiRatings do for governing bodies beyond high performance?

Governing bodies work with EquiRatings across six areas: Data Management, Social License (risk measurement and welfare), Fan Engagement, Data Commercialisation, Membership Management, and Managing the Sport (governance and integrity monitoring). The common thread is making the data a governing body already holds into something actionable and valuable.

What does Live Championship Support involve?

Real-time data delivered to management during championships — medal simulations, predicted placings, predicted scores, updated probability figures as phases complete. Delivered via WhatsApp for speed and immediacy at critical in-competition decision points.

 

9. Further Reading

10. Related Guides

• The EquiRatings Guide to Performance Metrics & Predictive Analytics
• The EquiRatings Guide to Horse & Rider Profiles
• The EquiRatings Guide to High-Performance Strategy & Sport Evolution
• The EquiRatings Guide to Major Event Previews
• The EquiRatings Guide to Data-Driven Horse Sourcing