Report an error
Global revenue generated by Adidas correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Restaurant spending in New York | r=0.99 | 15yrs | No |
The number of producers and directors in New York | r=0.98 | 17yrs | No |
Italian-type cheese consumption | r=0.97 | 16yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Rhett | r=0.97 | 17yrs | No |
Mozzarella cheese consumption | r=0.96 | 16yrs | No |
The number of museum conservators in New York | r=0.93 | 17yrs | No |
Air pollution in Sandpoint, Idaho | r=0.9 | 17yrs | Yes! |
Google searches for 'flights to Antarctica' | r=0.9 | 17yrs | No |
Air quality in Chicago | r=0.89 | 17yrs | No |
Google searches for 'white house hotline' | r=0.83 | 17yrs | No |
The number of middle school teachers in Puerto Rico | r=0.81 | 13yrs | No |
Points scored by the Kansas City Chiefs | r=0.78 | 17yrs | No |
Global revenue generated by Adidas 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.)