Live demo
The best rep on this leaderboard has closed three deals.
Forty reps, one year of qualified opportunities, and a true close rate injected into each of them that no ranking ever gets to see. Everything below is computed in your browser from the outcomes. At the end we check both leaderboards against the truth, which is the one thing you can never do with real data.
| # | Rep | Opps | Rate | Becomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Priya N.joined Jul 2026 | 5 | 60.0% | #11 ▼ |
| 2 | Kwame A.joined May 2026 | 16 | 56.3% | #4 ▼ |
| 3 | Hannah B. | 640 | 46.7% | #1 ▲ |
| 4 | Tomas V.joined Jun 2026 | 11 | 45.5% | #12 ▼ |
| 5 | Paulo R. | 210 | 41.0% | #3 ▲ |
| 6 | Rafael C. | 520 | 40.4% | #2 ▲ |
| 7 | Ruth C. | 105 | 40.0% | #5 ▲ |
| 8 | Ines B.joined May 2026 | 13 | 38.5% | #14 ▼ |
| 9 | Ivy M. | 470 | 37.0% | #6 ▲ |
| 10 | Greta L. | 380 | 36.3% | #7 ▲ |
| # | Rep | Opps | Rate | Was |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hannah B. | 640 | 45.8% | #3 ▲ |
| 2 | Rafael C. | 520 | 39.7% | #6 ▲ |
| 3 | Paulo R. | 210 | 39.2% | #5 ▲ |
| 4 | Kwame A.joined May 2026 | 16 | 37.6% | #2 ▼ |
| 5 | Ruth C. | 105 | 37.3% | #7 ▲ |
| 6 | Ivy M. | 470 | 36.5% | #9 ▲ |
| 7 | Greta L. | 380 | 35.7% | #10 ▲ |
| 8 | Samir P. | 610 | 34.5% | #12 ▲ |
| 9 | Yuki S. | 195 | 34.1% | #11 ▲ |
| 10 | Claire V. | 410 | 33.8% | #13 ▲ |
The free lunch
Scored against the truth, the corrected board wins by 7.6×
Every rep in this data has an injected true close rate. Sum the squared error of each leaderboard against it. This is the comparison you cannot run at work, and it is the reason to trust the method when you get there.
James-Stein says this is not luck. For three or more groups, shrinking toward the population mean beats the raw estimates in total squared error. Always, not usually. The result is from 1961 and it is still almost entirely absent from business tooling.
The four worst reps by raw rate are Sofia L. (1/6), Marcus O. (1/7), Ben H. (1/8), Dani R. (1/9). All four joined this year. After correction they sit at #23, #26, #29, #30, and one of them has a true rate sitting on the team average. A performance plan built on the raw bottom is a performance plan built on four coin flips.
How far each rep moves
Three opportunities is worth almost nothing, and the math says so exactly
The pull toward the team mean is the fitted prior strength divided by that plus the rep’s opportunity count. It is not a rule of thumb or a minimum-sample cutoff. A rep with 5 opportunities moves 88.7% of the way; a rep with 640 moves 5.8%.
The eight red dots are everyone who started carrying a quota this year. They are the only reps whose numbers move materially, and on the raw board they occupy both ends of the ranking.
Who is actually different
Ranking forty reps is forty simultaneous tests
Screening a whole leaderboard for outliers means testing every rep against the team rate at once, and at forty tests you expect two false flags at the 5% line before anyone has done anything unusual. Benjamini-Hochberg controls that. It costs you findings: 16 reps clear an uncorrected p < 0.05, 12 survive FDR control.
| Rep | Opps | Raw | Shrunk | 95% interval | q | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hannah B. | 640 | 46.7% | 45.8% | 42.0% – 49.5% | <0.0001 | Above team |
| Rafael C. | 520 | 40.4% | 39.7% | 35.6% – 43.7% | <0.0001 | Above team |
| Paulo R. | 210 | 41.0% | 39.2% | 33.2% – 45.3% | 0.0036 | Above team |
| Ivy M. | 470 | 37.0% | 36.5% | 32.3% – 40.7% | 0.0047 | Above team |
| Greta L. | 380 | 36.3% | 35.7% | 31.1% – 40.3% | 0.0268 | Above team |
| Samir P. | 610 | 34.8% | 34.5% | 30.8% – 38.1% | 0.0356 | Above team |
| Kai N. | 900 | 25.9% | 26.1% | 23.3% – 28.9% | 0.0268 | Below team |
| Mira Z. | 545 | 24.4% | 24.8% | 21.3% – 28.3% | 0.0189 | Below team |
| Iris F. | 355 | 22.0% | 22.8% | 18.6% – 26.9% | 0.0047 | Below team |
| Otto W. | 425 | 21.9% | 22.6% | 18.8% – 26.4% | 0.0020 | Below team |
| Lior T. | 305 | 20.3% | 21.4% | 17.1% – 25.8% | 0.0020 | Below team |
| Vera H. | 610 | 18.0% | 18.8% | 15.8% – 21.8% | <0.0001 | Below team |
Not one rep who joined this year appears on this list, in either direction. That is the correct answer: with fewer than twenty opportunities there is no evidence about anyone yet, however extreme their number looks. 6 reps are genuinely above the team rate and worth studying; the rest of the top of the raw board was noise.
The calculator
How much of that number should you believe?
Someone shows you a close rate. Before you promote, investigate, or copy whatever they are doing, put the denominator in. The prior here is the one fitted from this team, worth 39 opportunities.