Adam Idah vs Fábio Silva
Per-90 stats comparison · Rising Transfers DNA Analysis · 2025/26 season
Data Verdict
Fábio Silva commands a higher market value (€28.0M vs €7.0M). Adam Idah leads in goals / 90. Fábio Silva is stronger in assists / 90 and shots / 90. Overall, Fábio Silva holds the statistical edge across 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Based on per-90 statistics · How we compare players →
Playing Style Profiles
A Target Man. Statistically, he stands out as an elite creator (1.7 key passes/90), a proven goalscorer (0.65 goals/90), a reliable supplier (0.22 assists/90) and top 10% scorer in the league.
A Complete Forward. Statistically, he stands out as an elite creator (2.0 key passes/90), a prolific assist provider (0.86 assists/90) and creates high-quality scoring opportunities (0.58 big chances/90).
Per-90 Statistics Comparison
| Metric | Adam Idah | Fábio Silva | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goals / 90 | 0.65 | 0.33 | Adam |
| Assists / 90 | 0.22 | 0.33 | Fábio |
| Shots / 90 | 2.39 | 3.63 | Fábio |
| Key passes / 90 | 1.74 | 2.31 | Fábio |
| Passes (final 3rd) / 90 | 2.06 | 2.67 | Fábio |
| Tackles won / 90 | 0.29 | 0.33 | — |
| Press intensity / 90 | 1.25 | 1.29 | — |
| Pass accuracy % | 65.60 | 72.90 | Fábio |
All statistics per 90 minutes · 2025/26 season · FULL quality DNA data only
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is the better player — Adam Idah or Fábio Silva?
Fábio Silva commands a higher market value (€28.0M vs €7.0M). Adam Idah leads in goals / 90. Fábio Silva is stronger in assists / 90 and shots / 90. Overall, Fábio Silva holds the statistical edge across 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
How is this comparison calculated?
Rising Transfers compares players using per-90 statistics normalised for playing time, combined with DNA playing style vectors built from 47 performance dimensions. This ensures fair comparison regardless of team, league, or playing time. Learn more about our comparison methodology →
What are their market values?
Adam Idah has a market value of €7.0M, while Fábio Silva is valued at €28.0M.