Chile vs Georgia
What the model says about this fixture, at either ground and at a neutral one, with the record behind it. Ratings as at 2026-10-18.
Each figure is 5,000 simulations of this fixture. The score is where those runs are centred, not a likely scoreline — a rugby result is spread far too widely for any single one to be likely.
Make it your call
Pick your own scoreline for Chile v Georgia, see where it lands among the simulated runs, and save a card to post.
Build a shareable predictionHow the runs finished
Winning margin across 5,000 simulations of this fixture. Bars right of the centre are Chile wins; the faded bars at each end hold everything beyond 75 points.
Margin percentiles
- Middle 8 in 10
- Middle half
- Median
- Level
- Average
Eight runs in ten finished between 28 Georgia and 14 Chile, half of them between 16 Georgia and level, with the middle run at 6 Georgia.
Those are gaps rather than scorelines. How much scoring the match produces is drawn separately — between 33 and 77 points in eight runs out of ten — so one bar covers many scores. The middle run above is 24-18 on a tight afternoon and 36-30 on an open one.
Why Chile are not favoured
How the model arrives at the chance of Chile winning. It starts at an even 50%, and each line below adds to that or takes from it, in percentage points (pp): a bar to the right helps Chile, a bar to the left helps Georgia.
Chile 1530, Georgia 1899 — 369 points, favouring Georgia
Chile are at home
Recent results, past meetings between the two sides, and days of rest. It has a limit, so it can nudge the rating but never overrule it.
Head to head
3 meetings, 2004 to 2026 · Georgia by 14.7 on average
| Date | Match | Competition | Venue |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-18 | Chile 22–49 Georgia | — | Parque Mahuida, La Reina |
| 2005-11-12 | Georgia 29–6 Chile | — | Vake Stadium |
| 2004-11-06 | Chile 30–24 Georgia | — | Prince of Wales Country Club |
A dash under Competition means the record does not name one, which is common — most rows on file carry no competition. None of this feeds the forecast: both ratings already contain these results.