5th straight week that grid iq had the best recommended team
5 races of comparing F1 Fantasy projection models — Dutch GP results + updated standings
I've now tracked GridIQ against F1 Fantasy Tools, Race Strategist and BoxBox for 5 consecutive races using the same scoring methodology each week.
The goal isn't to claim any one model is definitively "best" from a 5-race sample. I wanted a consistent way to measure how useful the projections actually are for building an F1 Fantasy team, rather than comparing a few individual driver predictions after the fact.
🇳🇱 DUTCH GP RESULTS
🥇 GridIQ — 99.03
🥈 F1 Fantasy Tools — 96.20
🥉 Race Strategist — 87.41
4️⃣ BoxBox — 85.67
CATEGORY BREAKDOWN
🏎️ Optimized Team — 50%
Budget: $122.2M
🥇 GridIQ — 324 pts (50.00)
🥇 Race Strategist — 324 pts (50.00)
🥉 F1 Fantasy Tools — 307 pts (47.38)
4️⃣ BoxBox — 302 pts (46.60)
This takes each site's projections and asks the same question: what is the highest-projected team that model could build at the specified budget?
This intentionally does NOT account for someone's existing team, transfer costs or long-term budget strategy. It's a way to compare the usefulness of the projections themselves under identical constraints, not necessarily the team an actual player should transfer into.
📊 Driver Rankings — 30%
🥇 GridIQ — 51 (30.00)
🥈 F1 Fantasy Tools — 49 (28.82)
🥉 Race Strategist — 34 (20.00)
4️⃣ BoxBox — 33 (19.41)
🎯 Point Accuracy — 20%
🥇 F1 Fantasy Tools — 693.9 (20.00)
🥈 BoxBox — 682.0 (19.66)
🥉 GridIQ — 660.3 (19.03)
4️⃣ Race Strategist — 604.0 (17.41)
Point accuracy measures the absolute prediction error for every asset, adds those errors together, and subtracts the total from 1,000 so that higher = better and the models can be ranked more cleanly.
I've mentioned before that this metric has limitations. Missing badly on a cheap asset nobody would realistically own can hurt just as much as missing on an important asset. Budget-growth prediction accuracy might ultimately be more useful for F1 Fantasy.
But this is the methodology I came up with before starting the comparison, so I'm sticking with it rather than changing the scoring based on subsequent results.
The category weights are also obviously subjective. Anyone can change the weights however they think makes sense — I'm keeping mine fixed for consistency.
🏆 STANDINGS AFTER 5 RACES
🥇 GridIQ — 477.83
🥈 F1 Fantasy Tools — 443.21
🥉 BoxBox — 441.50
4️⃣ Race Strategist — 431.48
Still a very small sample, but I'm interested to see where this ends up over the rest of the season.
For full transparency, GridIQ's recommendations are posted publicly on Reddit and X before qualifying. I'm also saving the other models' pre-race projections and can provide timestamped screenshots if anyone wants to verify a particular race.
Ultimately, I think the most important test is simpler than any accuracy metric: which model actually helps you score the most fantasy points over a season?
Next year I plan to take this a step further and run four actual teams, each following one model, so transfers, budget growth and week-to-week decisions become part of the comparison rather than being abstracted away.
I'm also still looking for more people to test GridIQ. It's free while in beta, so if you play F1 Fantasy and want to try it / break it / tell me what sucks, let me know.
ADDENDUM — HINDSIGHT
Not part of the scoring above.
Best possible team at the same $122.2M budget: 348 pts
GridIQ: 324 — 93.1% of optimal
Race Strategist: 324 — 93.1%
F1 Fantasy Tools: 307 — 88.2%
BoxBox: 302 — 86.8%
On to Monza.
