Joshua Van vs Alexandre Pantoja

Each row splits one source's view of the fight. The dashed line is even odds. Where the models sit further from the market, they are claiming an edge.

Career UFC averages. Bars are scaled within each row, so compare left against right, not row against row. The stronger side is highlighted, and for strikes absorbed the lower number is the better one.

Each model's split across the ways this fight can finish, out of 100.

The first meeting ended in a first-round KO for Van, and everything since has widened the gap: Van followed it by stopping Tatsuro Taira in the fifth round of a title defense, while Pantoja will be 36 years old and returning from a 274-day layoff off the first knockout loss of his UFC run. Elo still leans Pantoja (53%) because it credits his 15-4 UFC ledger and peak 1661 rating, but Elo lags on age curves and cannot see that Van's +44 trend is driven by beating the two best flyweights in the world back-to-back. The market at -120 is a near coin flip, and I side slightly more with Van than either prior because the stylistic problem for Pantoja hasn't changed: Van throws 8.39 significant strikes per minute at 53% accuracy against a champion whose 49% striking defense was already the softest number on his profile before he was cracked. Pantoja's path is obvious - 2.79 takedowns per 15 and a rear-naked choke that finished Kara-France and Asakura - but Van defends 83% of takedowns and, in the Royval fight, showed he can scramble for 15 minutes without being controlled. The rematch adjustment I expect is Pantoja fighting more conservatively, clinching and chaining wrestling early instead of brawling, which lowers the chance of a repeat R1 blitz and pushes this toward a five-round decision Van wins on volume. Pantoja's submission equity is real and keeps confidence modest.

Van's higher striking output and superior striking differential favor him if exchanges remain standing. His 83% takedown defense supports that path, although Pantoja's higher takedown rate and submission activity create meaningful uncertainty. Van's high absorption rate limits confidence. Method probabilities are conditional on Van winning; round five assumes a five-round main event.