Clermont Auvergne vs Glasgow Warriors
What the model says about this fixture, at either ground and at a neutral one, with the record behind it. Ratings as at 2026-10-19.
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 Clermont Auvergne v Glasgow Warriors, 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 Clermont Auvergne 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 24 Glasgow Warriors and 12 Clermont Auvergne, half of them between 14 Glasgow Warriors and 4 Clermont Auvergne, with the middle run at 4 Glasgow Warriors.
Those are gaps rather than scorelines. How much scoring the match produces is drawn separately — between 32 and 76 points in eight runs out of ten — so one bar covers many scores. The middle run above is 23-19 on a tight afternoon and 34-30 on an open one.
Why Clermont Auvergne are not favoured
How the model arrives at the chance of Clermont Auvergne 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 Clermont Auvergne, a bar to the left helps Glasgow Warriors.
Clermont Auvergne 1466, Glasgow Warriors 1949 — 483 points, favouring Glasgow Warriors
Clermont Auvergne 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
1 meeting, 2026 to 2026 · Glasgow Warriors by 12.0 on average
| Date | Match | Competition | Venue |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-10 | Clermont Auvergne 21–33 Glasgow Warriors | European Champions Cup | Stade Marcel Michelin |
None of this feeds the forecast: both ratings already contain these results.