Report an error
Annual US household spending on processed fruits correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Searches for 'never gonna give you up' | r=0.93 | 17yrs | No |
Votes for Democratic Senators in Massachusetts | r=0.92 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Tesla's stock price (TSLA) | r=0.92 | 12yrs | No |
Google searches for 'elon musk' | r=0.92 | 13yrs | No |
NVIDIA's stock price (NVDA) | r=0.9 | 21yrs | No |
Sony Group's stock price (SONY) | r=0.86 | 21yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Republican Senators in New Mexico | r=0.82 | 8yrs | Yes! |
Votes for Republican Senators in Tennessee | r=0.79 | 8yrs | No |
Runs Scored by Winning Team in World Series | r=0.59 | 14yrs | Yes! |
Annual US household spending on processed fruits also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)