Hero Comparison Tool

Hero Comparison: instant side-by-side picks

How I use Hero Comparison before I deploy

When I’m stuck between two heroes, I don’t try to “feel” the right answer. I compare numbers, then I decide. This is the whole point of Hero Comparison: I can spot the category winners (⚔️ vs 🧠 vs 💪 vs 💬 vs 🏃), see where a hero is weak, and avoid building a team that collapses on one missing stat.

My workflow is simple: I pick Hero A and Hero B, I look at the biggest stat gap, then I ask one question: “Does this mission punish that gap?” If the call type leans heavy on a primary stat (like Combat or Rescue), I value that stat more. If the mission is multi-stat, I care more about balance and fewer zeros.

I also treat the “best fit” note as a hint, not a rule. It’s a fast nudge for mission planning, not a hard lock. If you want a general refresher on what “hero” means in the genre, Wikipedia’s quick overview is solid: Superhero.

What the five stats tell me (without overthinking)

I treat stats like tools in a bag. A high number doesn’t mean “best hero.” It means “best tool for a certain kind of problem.” If a mission’s gates are strict, raw stats carry the run. If the mission is flexible, I care more about coverage and avoiding dead weight.

Here’s the mindset I use: Combat (⚔️) is my “can we survive contact?” stat. Intellect (🧠) is my “can we solve the messy part?” stat. Vigor (💪) is my “can we endure and rescue?” stat. Charisma (💬) is my “can we talk it down?” stat. Mobility (🏃) is my “can we reach it in time?” stat. When a mission spikes one stat hard, I plan around that spike first.

I also watch for zeros. A zero isn’t automatically bad, but it does narrow your options. If I’m looking at a mission that mixes two or three gates, a hero with multiple zeros tends to force awkward team patches. In practice, I’ll still pick that hero if their strength is exactly what the mission demands—but I do it on purpose, not by accident.

A quick reference table I keep open

I like having a small “translation layer” between numbers and decisions. This table is the version I use in my head. It’s not pretending to be perfect math. It’s just the fastest way I know to stay consistent across a long playthrough.

My rule: pick the hero that removes the mission’s biggest risk first, then patch the second-biggest risk with the rest of the team.

How I match heroes to call types

I like using call types as a shortcut. If a hero is tagged as a strong fit for Combat Calls, I expect their profile to be reliable under pressure. If they lean Investigation, I expect problem-solving and setup power. Rescue fits usually signal endurance and stability. Mobility fits usually signal time-sensitive strength. It’s not a strict label, but it keeps my choices consistent.

The cleanest way to use this page is to compare a “specialist” against a “generalist.” Specialists win hard gates. Generalists save messy missions where you can’t predict which stat will spike. If I’m early in a run, I lean generalist to keep options open. If I’m late and I know the mission profile, I lean specialist to hit the gate clean.

If you want the fastest next step, I usually pair this with the mission success calculator on the homepage: compare two heroes here, then validate the whole team on the calculator. That two-step workflow catches most “looks good on paper” mistakes before they cost a mission.

Mistakes I avoid (and the fix for each)

• Picking the hero with the highest total. Fix: weight the mission’s biggest gate first.
• Ignoring zeros. Fix: only accept zeros when you know the mission doesn’t care.
• Overvaluing one stat every time. Fix: switch “primary stat” by call type.
• Forgetting mobility. Fix: treat 🏃 as a timer, not a bonus.
• Changing the whole team at once. Fix: swap one hero, then re-check.

FAQ