Ratings · Guide
HLTV Rating 2.0 explained, with newer versions in context
HLTV Rating 2.0 combines several performance measures rather than just kills and deaths. It is a historical version: HLTV later introduced 2.1 and 3.0. Read the version and source before comparing a score, especially on a third-party site.
Reviewed · Editorial method
A rating compresses several performance measures into a number. It is useful as a summary, but the method and context determine what you can infer from it.
What the original Rating 2.0 describes
In HLTV’s 2017 announcement, Rating 2.0 uses five broad components: kills, survival, KAST, impact and damage, calculated with side-specific expectations. HLTV gives 1.00 as its average reference and states that the exact formula is not public.
KAST is the share of rounds in which a player had a kill, assist, survived or was traded. A summary can account for contribution beyond the final kill, but it cannot preserve every tactical detail.
Rating 2.1 and 3.0 followed
Rating 2.1 updates expected averages for CS2 and changes how survival is rewarded. Rating 3.0 introduces a round-swing component and treats multi-kills as a separate component, alongside other changes.
Those announcements matter when comparing historical and current results. Do not label every modern rating as Rating 2.0 or assume values across versions are interchangeable.
What JumpThrow’s HLTV-style label means
JumpThrow ratings use its own implemented models from parsed match data. The models are inspired by HLTV-style performance summaries; they are not described here as HLTV’s official proprietary calculations.
Read the version and inputs. Do not directly convert a JumpThrow score to Leetify Rating, or treat a matching label on another site as proof of the same formula.
How to use a rating in review
Keep the score beside its match population, round count, side and role. A single high score does not prove a professional skill level, and a low score does not establish why the game was difficult.
Select recorded rounds to investigate a question about damage, trades, openings or survival. A low input may suggest where to look; it does not automatically diagnose over-peeking, bad aim or a lack of teamwork.
Sources
A practical starting point
Identify the model
Check the publisher and version. A third-party HLTV-style score is not automatically the official HLTV calculation.
Read the inputs
Compare the summary with damage, KAST, kills and survival, using the definitions on that site.
Inspect a round
Use recorded events and replay to investigate an explanation rather than treating the score as its cause.
Quick answers
Frequently asked questions
Is the official HLTV Rating 2.0 formula public?
HLTV's introduction describes five components and an average reference of 1.00, but explicitly says the exact formula is not public. Third-party HLTV-style calculations should be identified as their own models.
Is Rating 2.0 HLTV's newest version?
No. HLTV later introduced Rating 2.1 for updated CS2 expectations, then Rating 3.0 with changes including round swing and a separate multi-kill component. Always identify the version being discussed.
What is a good rating?
There is no universal score that proves a skill tier. HLTV set an average reference for its own model. Compare the same version across a meaningful sample, with opponents, side and role in view.
Put the guide to work · JumpThrow
Put the guide to work.
Use JumpThrow for the next step, or keep exploring the field guide.