2026 NFL Draft: Comparing top analysts’ rankings

With so many independent analysts ranking NFL Draft prospects, it can be hard to see the big picture. So we’ve compiled prospect rankings from ten of the industry’s top analysts and organizations, including ESPN’s Mel Kiper, NFL.com’s Daniel Jeremiah, Yahoo’s Nate Tice and our own Nick Baumgardner. And of course we’ve featured the most comprehensive, authoritative draft guide there is — Dane Brugler’s The Beast, which you can find right here at The Athletic. Keep this table handy on draft night; it will update as teams make their picks.

Rank vs. consensus
Lower On consensus Higher
Consensus
1
Jeremiyah Love photo
RB, Notre Dame
2
Arvell Reese photo
Edge, Ohio State
3
Fernando Mendoza photo
QB, Indiana
4
Sonny Styles photo
LB, Ohio State
5
David Bailey photo
Edge, Texas Tech
6
Caleb Downs photo
S, Ohio State
7
Mansoor Delane photo
8
Rueben Bain Jr. photo
Edge, Miami
9
Francis Mauigoa photo
OT, Miami
10
Carnell Tate photo
WR, Ohio State
11
Spencer Fano photo
OT, Utah
12
Kenyon Sadiq photo
TE, Oregon
13
Olaivavega Ioane photo
G, Penn State
14
Makai Lemon photo
WR, USC
15
Jordyn Tyson photo
WR, Arizona State
16
Monroe Freeling photo
OT, Georgia
17
Dillon Thieneman photo
S, Oregon
18
Jermod McCoy photo
CB, Tennessee
19
Keldric Faulk photo
Edge, Auburn
20
Denzel Boston photo
WR, Washington
22
Kadyn Proctor photo
OT, Alabama
23
Akheem Mesidor photo
Edge, Miami
24
Omar Cooper Jr. photo
WR, Indiana
25
Caleb Lomu photo
OT, Utah
26
KC Concepcion photo
WR, Texas A&M
27
Colton Hood photo
CB, Tennessee
28
Kayden McDonald photo
DT, Ohio State
29
Max Iheanachor photo
OT, Arizona State
30
Blake Miller photo
OT, Clemson
31
Avieon Terrell photo
CB, Clemson
32
Peter Woods photo
DT, Clemson
33
Chris Johnson photo
CB, San Diego State
34
Zion Young photo
Edge, Missouri
35
Cashius Howell photo
Edge, Texas A&M
36
Ty Simpson photo
QB, Alabama
37
CJ Allen photo
LB, Georgia
38
T.J. Parker photo
Edge, Clemson
39
Jacob Rodriguez photo
LB, Texas Tech
40
Malachi Lawrence photo
Edge, UCF
41
Chase Bisontis photo
G, Texas A&M
42
Emmanuel Pregnon photo
G, Oregon
43
Caleb Banks photo
DT, Florida
44
Germie Bernard photo
WR, Alabama
45
D’Angelo Ponds photo
CB, Indiana
46
Brandon Cisse photo
CB, South Carolina
47
Jadarian Price photo
RB, Notre Dame
48
Christen Miller photo
DT, Georgia
49
Gabe Jacas photo
Edge, Illinois
50
R Mason Thomas photo
Edge, Oklahoma
Brugler
Reid
PFF
Zierlein
ESPN
McShay
Jeremiah
Kiper
Tice
Baumgardner
213T4412231
1421125323
361T4241112
434T8733447
7962364594
528T10658655
68938891486
975791271678
1157T8591091411
1010106137681012
8181214191113101710
1616141211181415199
12111619151311122213
131315T10101412113119
201519T1512101872316
171413T2814222213614
181711T33201516182515
141217T20163319291318
152022T15251929261217
263231T20232023211526
232521T23213415332425
19342713171624173333
283320T17181726233821
222124T23242417353724
253038T28282730251628
212335T17322325452123
302234T28312921442630
323728T23263033372827
332430T38412831191129
292625T44522120201832
272923T23224738463220
353533T35273239322042
241946T38392635312737
374140T20293545223631
393626T28303828515936
425042T50372536244434
464318T54454632283922
312829T54533127493047
403845T40463742386535
364454T40544340305841
344048T40335252603546
574536T35474156345640
524632T33345351622948
414249T54434849426739
382743T60664550574244
453941T65385043476949
515356T285058342755
435837T404965463941
493151T444442616151
445547T606144443654

While there is a decent amount of general consensus among the experts — everyone believes Notre Dame’s Jeremiyah Love is at least in the top four overall — there is a fair amount of variation, too. Miami edge rusher Rueben Bain Jr., for example, has overall rankings spanning from fifth to 16th. And the farther down the table you go, the wider the variation is.

How to use the table: Each expert has their own column, with the consensus ranking on the left representing an average of sorts. You can click or tap on a column header to sort the table by that analyst’s ranking. Each rank is colored by how that expert compares to the consensus — prospects an analyst liked more than average are more green, and rankings lower than consensus are more orange. You can find more details about the methodology below, along with links to each expert’s full big board.

Methodology

To produce an aggregate rating for a given prospect, we used a variation of a statistical method called the Plackett-Luce model. It is often used to model ranked data and create composite ranks (some well-known applications include ranking NASCAR drivers and political candidates). Here, the composite rank is similar to an average of all ranks for a given prospect, with additional consideration given to being left off lists entirely.

Only prospects among the 2,700+ included in the 2026 Beast were eligible to be in this analysis. Dane Brugler’s additional positional rankings (for prospects outside his top 300) also contributed to composite rankings, as did Mel Kiper’s additional quarterback, running back and wide receiver positional rankings (for prospects outside his top 150). Lance Zierlein of NFL.com provides a numeric grade down to two decimal places for each prospect, without any ordinal ranks — prospects with equal scores were considered tied for the same rank.

The Athletic collected data as of April 21 from the following sources: The Athletic’s Dane Brugler’s ‘The Beast’ guide, ESPN’s Jordan Reid (published April 17), Pro Football Focus, NFL.com’s Lance Zierlein, ESPN’s best available list, The Ringer’s Todd McShay, NFL.com’s Daniel Jeremiah, ESPN’s Mel Kiper, The Athletic’s Nick Baumgardner (published March 26) and Yahoo Sports’s Nate Tice (published April 15).

Additional reporting by Emily Giambalvo.