The Fight StoryClick here to expandThe story behind the stats.
As Amir Albazi steps into the octagon against Alessandro Costa at UFC Fight Night: Procházka vs. Stirling, the stakes couldn't be higher for both flyweights. With Albazi sporting a solid 17-3 record and holding a slight height and reach advantage at 5'5" and 68 inches, he brings a wealth of experience to the bout. However, Costa, at 17-5, is riding high on a three-fight win streak, showcasing a recent win rate of 80% that outshines Albazi's 60%. This matchup has shades of 2021's clash between Rob Font and Cody Garbrandt, where the fighter on the upswing capitalized on their momentum.
The dynamics of their fighting styles further add intrigue. While Albazi excels in control time with 70.4 seconds per round, Costa boasts a striking accuracy of 49.3%, significantly surpassing Albazi's 33.8%. Both fighters have a penchant for finishing fights, with Costa's finish rate at an impressive 82.4% compared to Albazi's 80%. With a notable odds gap highlighting Costa as the favorite, fans can expect a thrilling contest that will test both fighters’ wills and tactics.
Prediction IntelClick here to expandOur call — and the case for it.
Stats Model Prediction
🔒 Prediction locked in before the fight · Predicted Oct 31, 2026, 00:03 UTC
Model Breakdown
Amir AlbaziAlessandro Costa
Deep Learning Model α 26% weight49.0%51.0%
Deep Learning Model ξ 25% weight43.6%56.4%
Statistical Model δ 13% weight48.7%51.3%
Statistical Model β 21% weight42.0%58.0%
Statistical Model ε 15% weight45.3%54.7%
Ensemble43.8%56.2%
AI Reasoning (why the models picked this)
The ENSEMBLE prediction favors Alessandro Costa, driven by Alessandro Costa's win streak and significant strike accuracy advantage. Despite some models noting Amir Albazi's reach and southpaw stance, Alessandro Costa's consistent edge in striking volume and win rate across multiple models solidifies the combined prediction.
Statistical Model β: Model β favors Alessandro Costa, citing Alessandro Costa's past prime status and a favorable recent win rate difference.
Statistical Model ε: Model ε favors Alessandro Costa, pointing to Alessandro Costa's height and a higher volume of significant strikes landed by Alessandro Costa.
AI-generated from the model outputs above — wording may occasionally be imprecise.
Predicted Winner
Alessandro Costa
56.2%
Confidence
* Model output, not betting advice. Bet responsibly.
Predicted Duration
Decision (15m00s total)
Chance the Fight Is Still Going
79%64%58%
Rnd 1Rnd 2Rnd 3
58%
Chance of Decision
The curve stays above 50% all the way to the final bell, which is why the call above is a decision.
Matchup IntelClick here to expandPast fights with a similar statistical shape, plus how fights like this one typically end.
How Similar Fights Ended
288 historical bouts
Every past fight is placed by the SHAPE of its mismatch — how far apart the two fighters were on each of 37 career measures, setting aside which one was ahead. Fights that sit close together form a profile. Below is how the 288 bouts in this bout's profile actually ended.
53%Reached the judges
47%Ended early
31%KO/TKO17%Submission4:45Median finish, round 1
When those finishes came
Rnd 171
Rnd 246
Rnd 318
Rnd 40
Rnd 51
This is a base rate over similar past matchups, not a prediction about these two fighters. It is drawn from what happened historically, and the profile is blind to which corner is which — so it can say how fights like this one tend to go, and nothing at all about who wins.
Fights with a similar mismatch
Every fighter is reduced to a profile of 37 career measures as they stood going into the fight, standardised so that no single measure dominates merely for having bigger units — a far wider read than the six charted below. The bout is then described by the gap between the two: how far apart they were on each of those measures, setting aside which one was ahead. The fights listed here are those whose gaps line up most closely with this one. Because the match is on the shape of a mismatch rather than on a weight class or an era, a neighbour can come from an entirely different division.
82%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
80%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
80%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
79%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
79%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
77%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
77%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
77%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
77%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
76%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
76%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
76%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
76%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
76%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
76%How closely the gap between these two fighters resembles the gap in that historical bout — the size and shape of the mismatch, not the fighters themselves. Two completely different pairs can produce the same mismatch. 100% would be an identical gap; two fights picked at random score about 36%, so a number near that means there is no real comparable on record.Match
Statistics IntelClick here to expandA full head-to-head stat comparison — per-round output and career tendencies — against the UFC average.
Head-to-Head Statistics
The same per-round and advanced numbers each fighter's profile shows, side by side. The stronger value in each row is highlighted.
Stat
Amir Albazi
Alessandro Costa
UFC AVG
Per Round Average
Strikes
12.0
15.4
13.2
Strike accuracy
33.8%
49.3%
43.9%
Takedowns
0.4
0.2
0.4
Takedown accuracy
25%
26.7%
33.0%
Sub attempts
0.1
0.2
0.2
Control time
70.4s
21.9s
48.9s
Knockdowns
0.10
0.22
0.08
Knockdowns absorbed
0
0.11
0.13
Advanced Fighter Statistics
win rateWins divided by this fighter's total recorded fights.
83.3%
77.3%
45.8%
recent win rateWin rate over the last 5 recorded fights only — a form signal, not a career figure.
60.0%
80.0%
37.6%
win streakCurrent run: a positive number is consecutive wins, a negative number consecutive losses.
-2
3
-2
total fightsTotal recorded fights, including bouts outside the UFC.
18
22
—
head strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the head. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
69.3%
61.4%
—
body strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the body. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
17.5%
18.8%
—
leg strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes that went to the legs. Head, body and leg sum to 100%.
13.1%
19.9%
—
sig strikes absorbedSignificant strikes opponents land on this fighter PER ROUND, counted from the round-by-round UFC stats across their scored rounds. Lower is better.
18.76
14.89
15.2
takedowns absorbedTakedowns opponents complete on this fighter PER ROUND, counted from the round-by-round UFC stats across their scored rounds. Lower is better.
0.14
0.22
0.4
cardio sig ratioThis fighter's significant strikes landed in the LATER rounds divided by the EARLIER rounds. 1.0 is neutral: above it their output grows late, below it they fade. Shown only for fighters with at least 3 UFC bouts on record.
0.73
0.12
0.52
cardio defence ratioWhat OPPONENTS land on this fighter in the LATER rounds divided by what they land in the EARLIER rounds. 1.0 is neutral. LOWER is better — a high value means opponents find them more as the fight wears on. Shown only for fighters with at least 3 UFC bouts on record.
0.78
0.28
0.56
cardio takedown ratioThis fighter's takedowns in the LATER rounds divided by the EARLIER rounds. 1.0 is neutral. Shown only for fighters with at least 3 UFC bouts on record.
0.4
0.000
0.42
is orthodoxWhether the fighter's recorded stance is orthodox.
Yes
Yes
—
is southpawWhether the fighter's recorded stance is southpaw.
No
No
—
switch stanceWhether the fighter is recorded as switching stance.
No
No
—
finish rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by finish, KO/TKO or submission. The denominator is wins, not fights.
80.0%
82.4%
46.5%
KO win rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by KO or TKO. The denominator is wins, not fights.
26.7%
41.2%
27.9%
sub win rateShare of this fighter's WINS that came by submission. The denominator is wins, not fights.
53.3%
41.2%
18.7%
been stopped rateShare of this fighter's LOSSES that ended by finish — the denominator is LOSSES, not fights. A fighter who is 20-1 whose single loss was a KO therefore reads 100%.
0.0%
60.0%
52.3%
distance strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown at distance. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
85.3%
75.5%
—
clinch strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown in the clinch. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
2.8%
7.9%
—
ground strike shareShare of this fighter's landed significant strikes thrown on the ground. Distance, clinch and ground sum to 100%.
12.0%
16.6%
—
avg fight duration (m:ss)Mean length of this fighter's UFC fights, in minutes and seconds. "—" means we hold no round-time data for them.
14:30
8:48
—
Elo ratingA UFC-only Elo rating: it rises and falls with results, weighted by the opponent's rating. 1500 is the starting and dataset-average value.
1,545.1
1,532.1
1500
PageRankHow central this fighter is in the network of who-fought-whom. It reflects the quality of opposition they have shared a cage with, not their skill.
0.134
0.125
0.069
career stageForm over the last 4 fights before this one: 3 or more wins reads Peak, 2 or fewer reads Decline, and fewer than 4 prior fights reads Early.
