Best AI football scouting tools (2026 comparison)

Disclosure: this page is published by Gemsy, one of the tools compared. For the others we only report what their own websites say (or, where stated, third-party sources), checked on 8 November 2026 and linked in each entry. We do not rate or score the other tools: the only test with figures on this page is the test of Gemsy’s reports against the best general-purpose AIs, with its method. If a company spots an outdated fact, it can write to [email protected] and we will correct it.

Which kind of tool do you need?

• Data and video platforms: event data for every match linked to video, for analysts and scouting departments at professional clubs. Examples: Hudl StatsBomb and Hudl Wyscout.
• Physical tracking: each player’s position on the pitch, speed and distances, obtained with computer vision. Example: SkillCorner.
• Valuation and potential models: proprietary ratings of level, potential or transfer value. Examples: SciSports and TransferLab.
• Transfer marketplaces: connect clubs and agents with market information. Example: TransferRoom.
• Generative AI assistants: understand plain-language requests, compare players and write analyses or reports. Examples: Gemsy, Comparisonator’s CompaGPT, ScoutWise and FootballGPT’s scout mode.

Comparison table

Source for each row: the tool’s own website, linked below, checked on 08/11/2026. “Not stated” means the website does not say, not that it does not exist.

The tools, one by one

Gemsy

This one is ours. Gemsy is AI football scouting software that works as a conversation: you describe the player you need and Vega, its AI model, searches a database of 150,000+ men and 16,500+ women players, compares candidates and writes the scouting report with a signing verdict. Its bet is not having more data than anyone else, but the quality of the report: every claim with its figure and date, gaps declared rather than filled, and a conclusion that commits (read a full real report). It covers professional and semi-professional football in any country, men’s and women’s, and exports to PDF, Word, Excel and PowerPoint. It is available in seven languages, publishes its plans and has a free one with no card required. In a blind test against the best general-purpose AIs, its report came out on a par with the best model tested (figures and method below).

What Gemsy does not have: match video or physical tracking data. If your work depends on those, you will also need a tool from the video or tracking categories.

Hudl StatsBomb

A data platform for recruitment, opposition analysis and match analysis, with event data linked to video (website). Since August 2026 it includes “AI Player Summaries”, a plain-language profile of each player written from their data (announcement). The platform is available in ten languages, including Spanish (announcement). Pricing is not published. Hudl acquired StatsBomb in August 2024.

Hudl Wyscout

A match video and data platform for clubs and scouting departments (website). Its product page does not mention AI features; we include it because it is part of Hudl alongside StatsBomb. It has subscription plans and others priced on request (plans).

Comparisonator

Presents itself as a football recruitment platform (website). Its AI includes CompaGPT, which analyses performance in natural language; “Virtual Transfer”, which virtually moves a player to another league; machine-learning-backed search; and similar-player comparison. It publishes annual prices and offers a 3-day free trial with no card required (pricing).

ScoutWise

Describes itself as an AI-native scouting platform (website), with an AI chat. According to its App Store listing, the app generates scouting reports, finds similar players and compares 2 to 4 players (App Store). The app is free with paid plans, and there is a portal for clubs, media and agencies.

FootballGPT

An AI assistant aimed mainly at coaches: session plans, tactics and drills (website). It includes a “Scout Mode” to search player statistics, compare players and get scouting reports (Scout Mode). It has a free plan and publishes its prices.

SkillCorner

A provider of tracking and physical data obtained with computer vision from a single camera, including TV broadcast footage (website). Founded in Paris in 2016 (company). It works with teams, leagues and federations; pricing is not published and it offers demos.

SciSports

A Netherlands-based football data company with proprietary models for level, potential and estimated transfer value, and a platform combining video, tracking and events (website). It works with clubs, leagues, federations and agencies. Pricing is not published.

TransferRoom

A London-based transfer market platform. Its Scout product is presented as “AI-first”: it recommends shortlists, summarises reports automatically and includes an AI agent (website). It works with clubs and agencies and offers demos; pricing is not published.

TransferLab (Analytics FC)

Scouting software with similar-player search, age curves and the “Goal Difference Added” model, using performance and physical data (website). Available in Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish and Greek as well as English, with a 7-day trial.

Report quality: Gemsy against the best general-purpose AIs

Update of 11 November 2026: against Claude Fable 5.2

On 11 November 2026 we repeated the test against Claude Fable 5.2, the most recent general-purpose model, with the same 23 players, the same request and the same criteria. Gemsy’s report, now with the Vega model, is on a par with Claude Fable 5.2: we generated it twice and judged it in two separate rounds, and in both the difference is not statistically significant.

• Round 1: +3.0 points for Gemsy [−0.5, +6.4]. Gemsy scores higher on 17 players and lower on 6: statistical tie.
• Round 2: −0.5 points for Gemsy [−5.6, +4.4]. Gemsy scores higher on 13 players and lower on 10: statistical tie.

What you should know about this update: in both rounds Gemsy scores higher on usefulness and on being up to date, and Claude Fable 5.2 on not stating what it cannot back up. There was a single judge, Claude Opus 5.5, from the same company as Claude Fable 5.2; the reports were anonymised and in random order. All the reports were generated that same day. The other systems in the October table were not measured again: their figures are those of 13 October and cannot be compared with those of this date.

Full test of 13 October 2026: five systems (Gemsy with the Altair model)

We measured the quality of Gemsy’s reports with a blind test: 23 players, the same request to every system and two judges who check the facts on the web before scoring. Gemsy’s report is on a par with the best general-purpose model tested: GPT-6.1 Sol scores 87.9 out of 100 and Gemsy 85.5, a difference that is not statistically significant. Claude Fable 5.1, Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro High come next.

Gemsy against each one (mean difference per player and 95% confidence interval):

• GPT-6.1 Sol: −2.4 points [−6.3, +0.6]. Gemsy scores higher on 10 players and lower on 12 (1 tied): statistical tie.
• Claude Fable 5.1: +6.4 points [+1.2, +10.9]. Gemsy scores higher on 18 players and lower on 5: Gemsy ahead.
• Claude Opus 5.5: +26.2 points [+19.7, +31.7]. Gemsy scores higher on 22 players and lower on 1: Gemsy ahead.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro High: +34.7 points [+28.4, +40.3]. Gemsy scores higher on 22 players and lower on 1: Gemsy ahead.

By type of player (average score out of 100):

What the figures say, including what does not favour Gemsy: it has the best up-to-date score of the five (17.9 out of 20), because it checks the player’s current situation before writing, and it ranks first in two of the four groups of players, including European professional leagues. It still has room to improve on accuracy and on not stating what it cannot back up: the judges flagged 138 errors in its 23 reports, against 87 for GPT-6.1 Sol. In women’s football and in leagues outside Europe it is behind GPT-6.1 Sol.

How it was done

• Date: 13 October 2026, with the players’ situation as of 12 October 2026.
• Players (23): 4 from European professional leagues, 3 from the Americas and Asia, 5 women from four women’s leagues and 11 from Spain’s Primera and Segunda Federación (those in the table above).
• Request: the same for all: a scouting report in eight sections (summary, fit, physical, technical and tactical profile, risks, contract and market, verdict) to decide whether to sign the player that day, searching the web for the latest information. The request was written in Spanish.
• Gemsy: the high-reasoning report of the Altair model, in its version of that date.
• Judges: two AI models, Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Fable 5.1, separately and with the reports anonymised and in random order. Each judge first checks each player’s key facts on the web (injuries, minutes, contract, market) and then scores: accuracy 40, up to date 20, usefulness for a signing decision 25 and no fabrication 15.
• No self-judging: since both judges are also contestants, Claude Fable 5.1 is scored only by the Opus judge and Claude Opus 5.5 only by the Fable judge; the rest get the average of both judges.
• Statistics: paired differences per player with a 95% confidence interval (bootstrap). If the interval includes zero, it is a tie.
• Who ran it: the test was designed and run by Gemsy; it is not an independent audit. Only the five systems in the table were measured: the tools in this comparison were not measured and we do not score them.

How to choose

1. Start from your problem, not the tool. Are you missing video, physical data, coverage of the leagues you sign from, or time to get from an idea to a report?
2. Check coverage in the leagues you actually sign from, not the ones on the vendor’s homepage.
3. Ask for a real example of what it delivers. In an AI report, check whether every claim has a figure and a date, whether it states what it does not know and whether it ends with a clear recommendation. Our guide on how to write a football scouting report explains what it should contain.
4. Try before you pay. Several have a free plan or trial; others require a sales demo.
5. Check the language and format your club will use the results in.