Loading…
WR Efficiency Leaderboard
The most efficient WRs by PPR per snap — points produced per opportunity.
ProxyPPR per snap, not FP per route run.tank01 doesn’t chart routes run, so we never fabricate a route denominator — offensive snaps stand in (points produced per opportunity, independent of playing time). Values run lower than per-route benchmarks; the bands are our own field.
As-of weekAs of Week 6, 2025Point-in-time: aggregates Weeks 1–6 only.
Efficiency bandsElite≥ 0.40Strong≥ 0.35Solid≥ 0.30Rotational< 0.30PPR per snap · from our 2023–25 qualified-WR field
Most efficient WRs · PPR per snap
Per-route proxy — points produced per opportunity
24 WRs
| # | Player | PPR/snap | PPR/g | Tgt% | Snaps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Jaxon Smith-NjigbaWR SEA | 0.489Elite | 21.4 | 37% | 263 |
| 2 |  Puka NacuaWR LAR | 0.477Elite | 23.1 | 31% | 291 |
| 3 |  Luke McCaffreyWR WSH | 0.414Elite | 7.6 | — | 111 |
| 4 |  Amon-Ra St. BrownWR DET | 0.390Strong | 21.0 | 32% | 323 |
| 5 |  Tyreek HillWR MIA | 0.345Solid | 13.4 | 25% | 155 |
| 6 |  George PickensWR DAL | 0.343Solid | 20.1 | — | 351 |
| 7 |  Ja'Marr ChaseWR CIN | 0.341Solid | 18.6 | 29% | 327 |
| 8 |  Stefon DiggsWR NE | 0.338Solid | 11.8 | 24% | 209 |
| 9 |  Emeka EgbukaWR TB | 0.336Solid | 17.8 | — | 318 |
| 10 |  Deebo SamuelWRWSH | 0.333Solid | 15.7 | 28% | 282 |
| 11 |  Keenan AllenWR LAC | 0.328Solid | 13.8 | 24% | 252 |
| 12 |  DK MetcalfWR PIT | 0.317Solid | 15.7 | 23% | 248 |
| 13 |  Jaylen WaddleWRMIA | 0.308Solid | 14.4 | — | 280 |
| 14 |  Hollywood BrownWR KC | 0.307Solid | 13.0 | — | 255 |
| 15 |  Quentin JohnstonWRLAC | 0.303Solid | 17.3 | — | 285 |
| 16 |  Drake LondonWR ATL | 0.286Rotational | 17.3 | 33% | 303 |
| 17 |  Rome OdunzeWR CHI | 0.285Rotational | 17.0 | 25% | 298 |
| 18 |  Nico CollinsWR HOU | 0.278Rotational | 14.0 | 25% | 252 |
| 19 |  Zay FlowersWR BAL | 0.276Rotational | 13.6 | 30% | 295 |
| 20 |  Justin JeffersonWR MIN | 0.276Rotational | 16.1 | 30% | 291 |
| 21 |  Garrett WilsonWR NYJ | 0.273Rotational | 16.6 | 38% | 364 |
| 22 |  Xavier WorthyWRKC | 0.273Rotational | 9.7 | — | 142 |
| 23 |  Ryan FlournoyWRDAL | 0.272Rotational | 5.6 | — | 123 |
| 24 |  Tyquan ThorntonWRKC | 0.271Rotational | 9.7 | — | 215 |
Most efficient WRs · PPR per snap
Per-route proxy — points produced per opportunity
24 WRs
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.489Elite
- PPR per game
- 21.4
- Target share
- 37%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 263
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.477Elite
- PPR per game
- 23.1
- Target share
- 31%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 291
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.414Elite
- PPR per game
- 7.6
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 111
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.390Strong
- PPR per game
- 21.0
- Target share
- 32%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 323
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.345Solid
- PPR per game
- 13.4
- Target share
- 25%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 155
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.343Solid
- PPR per game
- 20.1
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 351
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.341Solid
- PPR per game
- 18.6
- Target share
- 29%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 327
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.338Solid
- PPR per game
- 11.8
- Target share
- 24%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 209
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.336Solid
- PPR per game
- 17.8
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 318
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.333Solid
- PPR per game
- 15.7
- Target share
- 28%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 282
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.328Solid
- PPR per game
- 13.8
- Target share
- 24%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 252
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.317Solid
- PPR per game
- 15.7
- Target share
- 23%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 248
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.308Solid
- PPR per game
- 14.4
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 280
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.307Solid
- PPR per game
- 13.0
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 255
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.303Solid
- PPR per game
- 17.3
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 285
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.286Rotational
- PPR per game
- 17.3
- Target share
- 33%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 303
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.285Rotational
- PPR per game
- 17.0
- Target share
- 25%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 298
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.278Rotational
- PPR per game
- 14.0
- Target share
- 25%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 252
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.276Rotational
- PPR per game
- 13.6
- Target share
- 30%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 295
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.276Rotational
- PPR per game
- 16.1
- Target share
- 30%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 291
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.273Rotational
- PPR per game
- 16.6
- Target share
- 38%
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 364
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.273Rotational
- PPR per game
- 9.7
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 142
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.272Rotational
- PPR per game
- 5.6
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 123
- PPR per snap (per-route proxy)
- 0.271Rotational
- PPR per game
- 9.7
- Target share
- —
- Offensive snaps (volume)
- 215
PPR per snap is our sanctioned proxy for FP per route run. tank01 doesn’t chart routes run, so we never fabricate it — offensive snaps are the in-house denominator (per opportunity, independent of playing time). Because snaps include non-route plays, these values run lower than the per-route benchmarks @FantasyPtsData posts (Tyreek 0.85, Puka 0.75 FP/route) — different denominator, not comparable. Bands are our own 2023–25 WR distribution. Historical, descriptive — not a projection. How it works →