Clove vs Neon Attack and Defense Performance

Attack Side

Neon

49.4%

49.8%

Defense Side

Neon

50.2%

50.6%

Attack Side Breakdown

The attack-side comparison between Clove and Neon reveals near-perfect parity, with Clove winning 49.4% of attacking rounds compared to Neon's 49.8%. This negligible 0.4 percentage point difference indicates neither agent possesses inherent advantages when executing onto sites or pushing through chokepoints. When these agents meet on attack, success depends almost entirely on team coordination, execute timing, and individual mechanical skill rather than agent kit superiority.

From a tactical standpoint, neither Clove nor Neon should adjust their standard attacking approach based on this matchup. Both agents can run their typical execute patterns, default rotations, and lurk timings without worrying about a statistical disadvantage. The data from 519 matches suggests that whichever player has better game sense, utility timing, and raw mechanical aim will win attack-side encounters — there's no agent-based shortcut to victory here.

For entry fragging specifically, both Clove and Neon players can confidently take the first duel when executing onto sites. Neither agent's abilities create meaningful first-contact advantages over the other, so entry success comes down to crosshair placement, pre-aim quality, and jiggle-peeking technique. Whether you're playing Clove or Neon, approach site entries with the same confidence you'd have in any other matchup.

Post-plant scenarios in this matchup are similarly balanced. Neither agent demonstrates superior spike defense or retake denial capabilities against the other based on our attack-side data. When the spike is down, focus on standard post-plant fundamentals: positioning for crossfires, using utility to delay defuses, and communicating enemy positions to teammates. The 0.4% difference is small enough to be statistical noise rather than a meaningful advantage.

Defense Side Breakdown

Defensive performance between Clove and Neon is virtually identical, with Clove holding 50.2% of rounds on CT side and Neon at 50.6%. This 0.4 point margin indicates both agents contribute equally when anchoring sites, retaking, or denying post-plants. Neither possesses defensive utility advantages significant enough to swing matchup outcomes.

Both Clove and Neon can anchor sites with equal effectiveness in this matchup. Whether holding A, B, or mid on any map, neither agent's defensive kit provides meaningful advantages over the other. Site anchor decisions should be based on map knowledge, team composition needs, and personal preference rather than matchup considerations. The 0.4% difference is too small to influence site assignment choices.

Retake scenarios are similarly balanced between Clove and Neon. Neither agent demonstrates superior retake utility, post-plant clearing ability, or clutch potential against the other based on our defensive data from 519 matches. When retaking against either agent, focus on standard retake fundamentals: utility to clear common spots, coordinated timing with teammates, and trading effectively. Don't adjust your retake approach based on whether you're facing Clove or Neon.

Economy decisions and utility usage shouldn't change based on this specific matchup during defense. Both agents have comparable force buy success rates, full buy conversion, and utility effectiveness against each other. Make economy calls based on team needs and general defensive principles rather than Clove vs Neon specific considerations. Your standard defensive utility timing and placement will be equally effective regardless of which agent you're facing.

Overall Side Analysis

Neon maintains a consistent but slim advantage across both sides of the map in this matchup, with 49.8% attack win rate and 50.6% defense win rate. While Neon is statistically favored regardless of map side, the margins are close enough that Clove remains highly competitive and can win games through strong individual performance.

Map choice and team composition have minimal impact on this specific matchup outcome. Both agents perform similarly across attack-sided, defense-sided, and balanced maps. Pick based on personal comfort, team needs, and broader composition considerations rather than Clove vs Neon specific factors. The slight Neon advantage doesn't change based on external factors.

For ranked climbing, don't overthink this matchup. The statistical differences are small enough that individual skill, team coordination, and game sense remain the primary factors determining outcomes. Focus on improving your fundamentals on either agent rather than trying to gain edges through matchup knowledge. Both Clove and Neon are viable ranked picks with minimal matchup disadvantage.

Bottom line: this is one of the more balanced agent matchups in Valorant. Neon has a slight statistical edge, but Clove is absolutely viable and can win through skill. If you're comfortable on Clove, don't switch to Neon just for this matchup — the difference is too small to justify changing your agent pool.

Controller vs Duelist Dynamics

The Controller (Clove) vs Duelist (Neon) dynamic creates asymmetric encounters where each agent brings fundamentally different tools to engagements. Clove's Controller abilities serve different purposes than Neon's Duelist kit, meaning direct fights often feature non-equivalent utility exchanges.

Understanding how Controller abilities interact with Duelist counterplay is essential for maximizing your agent's potential. Clove's Controller toolkit may excel at certain aspects while Neon's Duelist kit counters others. The Neon advantage suggests their role's capabilities translate better to winning these cross-role encounters on average.