2026-04-21

Statistics from 2025 CQ WW SSB and CQ WW CW logs

A huge number of analyses can be performed with the various public CQ WW logs (cq-ww-2005--2025-augmented.xz; see here for details of the augmented format) for the period from 2005 to 2025.

As in prior years, there follow a few basic analyses that interest me. There is, of course, plenty of scope to use the log files for further analyses, some of which are suggested by the figures below.

Below are some simple analyses of basic statistics from the logs. The 2025 versions of the contests showed more or less normal activity, following several years disrupted by COVID and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The latter, of course, is still under way, but its effect on the contest seems to be decreasing. By the autumn of 2025, we were definitely past the peak of sunspot cycle 25. 

Number of Logs

Until 2020, the raw number of submitted logs for SSB had been relatively flat for several years; the logs submitted for CW showed a fairly steady annual increase. In 2020, unsurprisingly, the number of logs in both modes increased to new record, almost certainly because of the pandemic; CQ WW SSB 2021 set another record; on CW, the number of logs decreased slightly, but would still have been a record were it not for 2020. 2022 was another year of unusual circumstances: not only was the pandemic still in evidence in much of the world, but the Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with the CQ WW committee's vacillation on how to proceed in light of that invasion -- and then the protest against the committee's position as of the contest dates -- was always going to lead to a reduction in the number of submitted logs. In 2025, the numbers for both modes continued to bounce back up somewhat: on SSB they again set a new record, but on CW they still fell short of the 2020 peak.


 

Popularity

By definition, popularity requires some measure of people (or, in our case, the simple proxy of callsigns) -- there is no reason to believe, a priori, that the number of received logs as shown above is related in any particular way to the popularity of a contest, despite rather frequent conclusory statements to the contrary in various corners of the Internet (or, indeed, in print).

So we look at the number of calls in the logs as a function of time, rather than positing any kind of well-defined positively correlated relationship between log submission and popularity (actually, the posts I have seen don't even bother to posit such a relationship: they are silent on the matter, thereby simply seeming to presume that the reader will assume one). 

However, the situation isn't as simple as it might be, because of the presence of busted calls in logs. If a call appears in the logs just once (or some small number of times), it is more likely to be a bust rather an actual participant -- but the situation is complicated: some participants might a handful of contacts, and select only relatively exotic calls for those QSOs. Or perhaps they just worked their friends. Where to set a cut-off a priori in order to discriminate between busts and actual calls is therefore unclear; but we can plot the results of choosing several such values. 

First, for SSB:



Regardless of how many logs a call has to appear in before we regard it as a legitimate callsign, the popularity of CQ WW SSB during the pandemic surely increased from the doldrums of the prior few years. Complicating the picture in the past two or three years is, of course, the reduction in participation that is (presumably) due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Whatever the cause, the number of calls certainly seems to be well down on the number at a similar point in the last solar cycle


[I note that a plausible argument can be made that the number of uniques will be more or less proportional to the number of QSOs made (I have not tested that hypothesis; I leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to determine whether it is true), but there is no obvious reason why the same would be true for, for example, callsigns that appear in, say, ten or more logs. The interested reader might also consider basing a similar analysis on eXtended Super Check Partial files as created by the drscp program.]

Moving to CW:


 

On CW, we see that in 2022 the reduction due (presumably) to the Russian invasion of Ukraine led to the number of active calls being the lowest of all the years for which data are available. In 2023, and again in 2024, there was a slight correction; but the numbers of logged calls were still well short of the numbers during the high-sunspot years of the last solar cycle -- and in 2025 the numbers were essentially identical to those for 2022, the lowest year on record.

Give that SSB is faring somewhat better, it seems that the likely proximate cause is the removal of Morse as requirement for HF operating privileges that occurred in the 1990s, combined with the accelerating rate at which "old-timers" are becoming silent keys. It seems likely, therefore, that this trend will continue, and even accelerate, in the coming years. 

 

Geographical Participation


How has the geographical distribution of entries changed over time?

Again looking at SSB first:


 

The number of entrants from zone 16 continues to recover, but is still well down from historical levels. The number of logs from zones outside EU and the US continues to be very small. This can be seen more clearly if we plot the percentage of logs received from each zone as a function of time:


For a so-called "world-wide" contest, it this plot continues to be discouraging.

On CW, most zones evidence a sustained long-term increase:


 

Again we see the expected drop in entries from zone 16 in the past few (invasion-affected) years, but other than that the situation continues more or less as before, with the percentages of logs from each zone barely changing:


 

It is, I think, of some interest that the change in participation in zone 28 that is obvious on SSB is barely discernible on CW. Zone 24 is very slowly becoming more common; but, really, it's hard to argue that there have been any substantive improvements in the geographical distribution in the past 20 years.


Activity


Total activity in a contest depends both on the number of people who participate and on how many QSOs each of those people makes. We can use the public logs to count the total number of distinct QSOs in the logs (that is, each QSO is counted only once, even if both participants have submitted a log).

For SSB:


 

This appears to show that we are past the peak of cycle 25. The peak number of distinct QSOs is lower in cycle 25 than it was in cycle 24, and just one year after the peak the number of distinct QSOs is about the same as it was two years after the preceding peak.. 

 
And for CW:


 

2025 was down about 10% as compared to 2024. Next year, it will likely be down to levels not seen for twenty years.

Running and Calling


On SSB, the ongoing gradual shift towards stations strongly favouring either running or calling, rather than splitting their effort between the two types of operation, finally appears to have reached some kind of equilibrium. There was essentially no change between 2018 and 2019, and even a (very) slight reversal of the trend in 2020 and 2021. 2022, however, for the first time saw more than 30% of entrants making no run QSOs at all, a situation that has continued ever since. In 2023, the number of stations making fewer than 10% of their QSOs in a run exceeded 60%, a situation that continued in 2024; there is no sign of a reversal in this telling statistic. By 2025, that number was even higher, barely short of two-thirds. (I think that this is perhaps the most interesting statistic on this page, and I suggest that it speaks volumes about modern operators and stations.)


I have not investigated the cause of the decrease in the percentage of stations strongly favouring running, although the public logs could readily be used to distinguish possibilities that spring to mind, such as more SO2R operation, more multi-operator stations, and/or a reluctance of stations to forego the perceived advantages of spots from cluster networks. In any case, it certainly seems that SSB operators seem to fall decisively into one of two camps: runners and callers (look at the quite astonishing bimodal distribution in the first of the two graphs above, with the vast majority nearly always calling other stations).

On CW, the split between callers and runners continues to be much less bimodal than on SSB (on SSB, nearly 40% of entrants have no run QSOs; on CW, the equivalent number is below 10%, and shows no sign of rising appreciably). The difference in call/run behaviour on the two modes (and the difference in the way that the behaviour has changed over time) is profound, and probably worthy of further investigation. CW continues to appear to exhibit what would seem to be a much healthier split between the two operating styles:

 


Assisted and Unassisted


We can see how the relative popularity of the assisted and unassisted categories has changed since they were introduced:


On CW, there is now no longer more or less equal numbers of assisted and unassisted logs: a gap in favour of assisted operation has now definitely established itself. On SSB the unassisted logs handily exceeds the number of assisted logs. My guess, for what it is worth, is that CW assistance is more widespread partly because it (partially) absolves stations from actually being able to copy at high speed, and partly because the RBN is so effective that essentially all CQing stations are spotted.

I find it particularly interesting that the number of CWU logs has remained essentially unchanged ever since the unassisted category was created.

Looking at the number of QSOs appearing in the unassisted and assisted logs:


(The lines are for the median number of logs; the vertical bars run from 10% to 90%, 20% to 80%, 30% to 70%, 40% to 60%, with opacity increasing in that order.)


A long-term downward trend in the numbers of QSOs in the assisted logs ceased in 2016, and since then the median number of QSOs in the assisted logs has remained essentially unchanged. A more or less constant difference of roughly one hundred QSOs between the median CW and SSB logs (in favour of CW) continues.

Inter-Zone QSOs


We can show the number of inter-zone QSOs, both band-by-band and in total. In these plots, the number of QSOs is accumulated every ten minutes, so there are six points per hour.

Cycle 25 is now clearly past its peak. Unfortunately, the CW event suffers further by occurring a month later in the year than the SSB event. [I do not understand why the CQ WW committee do not alternate the weekends of the SSB and CW modes; but then, I don't understand a lot of what they do or don't do.]

Like other recent years, 2025 saw fairly ordinary 15m participation.

There was very little DX activity on 20m in 2025, on both modes.

As always, CW dominates on 40m; and, within that mode, intra-EU QSOs further dominate. After the first few hours of the contest, very little DX was worked in any of the last four years.

80m is always dominated by CW; 2025 showed a bit of improvement from 2024's record low level of activity.

160m paints a similar story to 80m, although the raw QSO counts are about half those on the higher band. Like 80m, 160m activity shows a slight improvement of 2024; but the DX activity continues to be well below that at the equivalent point of the last solar cycle.

The overall picture shows the progress of Cycle 25; but it now seems clear that DX activity is, for whatever reason, considerably less in this cycle.


2026-04-19

Busting Calls: CQ WW 2025

 Prior posts in this series:


Throughout this post, I apply the procedures developed in the second post above.

For the purpose of this post, only verified QSOs are counted.

Lowest Probability

I begin with an ordered list of the stations with the lowest probabilities of busting a call in 2025 CQ WW SSB.

2025 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 G4NBS 0.0009 1,072 0
2 AD1C 0.0010 978 0
3 WE6Z 0.0010 974 0
4 SE4E 0.0010 960 0
5 WH7T 0.0010 1,969 1
6 N1WR 0.0011 891 0
7 NF3R 0.0011 890 0
8 DL7URH 0.0011 844 0
9 DL1YAW 0.0011 834 0
10 F8CRS 0.0012 779 0

And for 2025 CQ WW CW:

2025 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 IK2XDE 0.0006 1,631 0
2 RX7T 0.0007 1,396 0
3 F8DBF 0.0007 1,303 0
4 JE1NVD 0.0007 1,255 0
5 N7IR 0.0009 1,109 0
6 9A2X 0.0009 1,091 0
7 UA3AP 0.0009 1,077 0
8 UA3MIF 0.0009 1,034 0
9 DL4FN 0.0010 990 0
10 DF2RG 0.0010 985 0

It is interesting to plot the aggregated probability function for $p_{bust}$ weighted by the verified number of QSOs, $Q_v$, for all stations:

In case it isn't clear, in the figure above the location of the solid vertical lines represent the weighted means of the probability curves. In 2025, then, there was little difference between these curves for CW and SSB.

We can limit the analysis to calling stations (i.e., not the running station).

2025 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (no-run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 DJ4MX 0.0005 1,851 0
2 DR4A 0.0006 1,435 0
3 W1GD 0.0008 1,203 0
4 G4NBS 0.0009 1,060 0
5 OE6MDF 0.0009 1,039 0
6 DP9A 0.0009 1,034 0
7 AD1C 0.0010 975 0
8 SE4E 0.0010 954 0
9 WJ1U 0.0010 940 0
10 MM1U 0.0011 883 0

2025 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (no-run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 N2AA 0.0004 2,053 0
2 DL3YM 0.0005 1,935 0
3 SP2LNW 0.0008 1,210 0
4 RX7T 0.0008 1,206 0
5 RA3AN 0.0008 1,136 0
6 N4QS 0.0008 1,134 0
7 JE1NVD 0.0009 1,075 0
8 YO4NF 0.0009 1,066 0
9 IK2XDE 0.0009 1,060 0
10 N2GC 0.0009 1,040 0

  And similarly for running stations: 

2025 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 WM9C 0.0007 1,415 0
2 WH7T 0.0011 1,891 1
3 9M8DEN 0.0011 892 0
4 DJ5MW 0.0017 2,399 3
5 IT9STX 0.0017 1,197 1
6 VE7BC 0.0017 1,725 2
7 K8GL 0.0018 538 0
8 TI1K 0.0019 2,149 3
9 LA8HGA 0.0019 516 0
10 YT4L 0.0019 500 0

2025 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 S57KM 0.0011 834 0
2 F8DBF 0.0013 741 0
3 W3FIZ 0.0015 642 0
4 OE5TXF 0.0015 1,309 1
5 KR2Q 0.0015 628 0
6 NH6V 0.0016 587 0
7 W4EF 0.0017 582 0
8 IK2XDE 0.0017 571 0
9 UN4Q 0.0018 2,233 3
10 I4IKW 0.0019 524 0

We can also look at the changes over the period from 2005 to 2025.

First for all QSOs:

Then for calling stations:


And for running stations:

The clear up-tick on CW in 2023 is rather interesting. At first, I thought that it might be due to people logging calls mis-spotted on the various spotting networks. But its presence when one limits the analysis to running stations would seem to make that theory untenable. Perhaps it is due to an increase in entrants using code readers, although one would expect few runners to be using those. So this might be an interesting area for further analysis, should anyone be interested. It really is a quite remarkable year-on-year change -- and especially so, given that whatever caused the uptick seems to have gone away. Very odd.

I think it's also interesting to see who appears to have the lowest probability of busting a call over an extended period. So, for the ten years 2016 to 2025:

2016--2025 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 OK1WCF 0.0005 1,726 0
2 OH7GGX 0.0006 3,287 1
3 UT7W 0.0006 1,466 0
4 LU1FAM 0.0007 1,400 0
5 K4RUM 0.0007 1,339 0
6 DL5AXX 0.0007 1,308 0
7 JM1NKT 0.0007 1,270 0
8 K9PG 0.0008 2,634 1
9 KT4O 0.0008 1,225 0
10 AD1C 0.0008 3,875 2

2016--2025 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 NW0M 0.0002 5,084 0
2 K9PW 0.0003 2,935 0
3 N7IR 0.0003 2,923 0
4 UN4PD 0.0003 2,914 0
5 JR3RWB 0.0004 2,404 0
6 K6WSC 0.0004 5,108 1
7 AD1C 0.0004 5,089 1
8 JN3SAC 0.0004 4,691 1
9 N0BK 0.0005 1,853 0
10 DP4X 0.0005 4,132 1

A good argument can be made that a better measure of copying ability is to consider only run QSOs:

2016--2025 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 LU1FAM 0.0007 1,353 0
2 C6ARW 0.0010 1,925 1
3 BV2A 0.0010 913 0
4 OM0WR 0.0012 1,734 1
5 F4FTA 0.0012 828 0
6 DL8RDL 0.0013 748 0
7 CF7RR 0.0013 1,557 1
8 CR2X 0.0014 2,169 2
9 TK9R 0.0014 13,326 18
10 SP9XCN 0.0015 2,663 3

2016--2025 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 LY3CY 0.0005 1,873 0
2 RA3TT 0.0006 1,530 0
3 JN3SAC 0.0007 1,371 0
4 R2VM 0.0009 1,040 0
5 DL1NEO 0.0009 2,200 1
6 E72U 0.0009 4,298 3
7 WB4TDH 0.0009 3,212 2
8 RG5A/6 0.0010 959 0
9 ZR2A/4 0.0010 951 0
10 G5Q 0.0010 936 0

Highest Probability

We can also look at the calls associated with the highest probability of busting calls in either the forward or the reverse direction:

2025 SSB -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 CN3A 15,367 232 1.5
2 II9P 11,251 208 1.8
3 VP2MPN 5,589 195 3.5
4 RU1A 11,373 179 1.6
5 A44A 6,224 178 2.9
6 RK4FD 6,124 175 2.9
7 V26B 11,705 173 1.5
8 ES9C 15,335 161 1.0
9 PR1T 6,919 161 2.3
10 9Z4BM 4,317 155 3.6

2025 CW -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 CN3A 15,265 242 1.6
2 PJ2T 11,405 208 1.8
3 F6KOP 7,694 185 2.4
4 TK0C 15,959 171 1.1
5 VP2MMA 4,701 171 3.6
6 ZF5T 12,366 164 1.3
7 ES9C 13,275 159 1.2
8 RW0A 6,902 149 2.2
9 JA3YBK 5,735 140 2.4
10 ED1R 8,700 138 1.6

2025 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 YB1BML 110 22 20.0
2 PU2NZO 103 19 18.4
3 PY3AN 131 24 18.3
4 DX9CHR 101 17 16.8
5 EA4HWF 110 18 16.4
6 UR5ZDZ 159 25 15.7
7 YB9JIP 100 14 14.0
8 IS0AGY 113 15 13.3
9 JH1CML 405 50 12.3
10 BA7OOJ 203 25 12.3

2025 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 LA100A 131 73 55.7
2 F5MBM 107 23 21.5
3 IZ5FSA 104 20 19.2
4 YT0B 268 49 18.3
5 YO9CX 102 18 17.6
6 OK2CMZ 122 21 17.2
7 WF1A 254 43 16.9
8 W6UB 240 40 16.7
9 S51SL 259 43 16.6
10 CX2CC 205 34 16.6

2025 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 DF0HQ 11,151 418 3.7
2 ES9C 15,335 369 2.4
3 TM2Y 5,258 317 6.0
4 RK4FD 6,124 316 5.2
5 RU1A 11,373 279 2.5
6 F6KOP 6,838 270 3.9
7 CQ3W 3,479 212 6.1
8 K3LR 10,761 209 1.9
9 UA7K 12,752 208 1.6
10 AB3AH 2,169 200 9.2

2025 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 5J1DX 7,827 597 7.6
2 ES9C 13,275 440 3.3
3 KP2B 6,104 367 6.0
4 IP2A 8,332 321 3.9
5 M6T 12,125 283 2.3
6 TK0C 15,959 261 1.6
7 KB4DX 4,330 248 5.7
8 RM9A 8,933 233 2.6
9 UA7K 11,338 233 2.1
10 PJ4K 12,714 228 1.8

2025 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 BH3AGU 176 15.3
2 ZW2L 463 13.2
3 BI8AQ 720 12.1
4 VU3FWG 593 12.0
5 HB2Y 427 11.9
6 BH8GFN 1,329 11.2
7 IZ2LQD 144 11.1
8 XE1ADY 1,197 10.9
9 BD4SDX 1,083 9.5
10 SP9MAT 201 9.5

2025 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 PDR4 156 100.0
2 IV3WMI 371 29.1
3 F4LTV 199 26.1
4 K7HV 125 21.6
5 UB4WCY 194 14.9
6 DG2SER 100 13.0
7 SA6LKX 166 12.7
8 4X5DK 106 12.3
9 DF8JK 164 12.2
10 WT1A 246 12.2

In tables of reverse busts, one sometimes finds what seems like an unreasonable number of reverse busts. This is generally caused by a discrepancy between the call actually sent by the listed station and the one recorded as being sent in at least some QSOs in the station's log (as is the case, for example, for "PDR4" in the CW table above: that was the "sent" call listed for every QSO in PD4R's log). Other causes of frequent reverse busts are poor sending/audio, unusual calls and calls that are very similar to the call of an active, well-known contester whose call appears in the various databases that can be found on the Internet.

Looking at a ten-year period:

2016--2025 SSB -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 CN3A 98,729 1,617 1.6
2 LZ9W 98,398 1,544 1.6
3 OT5A 60,647 1,307 2.2
4 PJ2T 75,526 1,224 1.6
5 V26B 69,821 1,155 1.7
6 YT5A 78,252 1,098 1.4
7 CR6K 68,133 1,042 1.5
8 CQ8M 32,382 959 3.0
9 II2S 63,855 952 1.5
10 M6T 79,758 926 1.2

2016--2025 CW -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 TK0C 91,763 1,279 1.4
2 PJ2T 95,008 1,244 1.3
3 LZ9W 106,154 1,193 1.1
4 CN3A 82,045 1,151 1.4
5 F6KOP 39,906 1,069 2.7
6 JA3YBK 49,340 1,037 2.1
7 YT5A 92,617 971 1.0
8 M6T 96,972 941 1.0
9 PI4CC 40,660 896 2.2
10 RW0A 46,515 884 1.9

2016--2025 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 IS0AGY 751 114 15.2
2 YB2BNN 632 87 13.8
3 OH1TS 749 95 12.7
4 UR5ZDZ 1,218 120 9.9
5 R9MBY 773 76 9.8
6 EA4GWL 931 91 9.8
7 LU4DJB 672 64 9.5
8 JH1CML 1,227 116 9.5
9 E20WXA 688 64 9.3
10 EA1HTF 1,526 139 9.1

2016--2025 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 KL7NL 550 111 20.2
2 DJ5UZ 586 117 20.0
3 SP2EPV 510 93 18.2
4 DL7CO 827 140 16.9
5 CE6VMO 695 111 16.0
6 LZ1BY 789 124 15.7
7 IK0YUO 670 104 15.5
8 LA6M 814 121 14.9
9 9A/AI6V 1,833 263 14.3
10 KD5QHV 557 79 14.2

2016--2025 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 DF0HQ 89,150 2,721 3.1
2 CN3A 98,729 1,427 1.4
3 JA3YBK 34,934 1,221 3.5
4 K3LR 70,598 1,111 1.6
5 F6KOP 30,766 1,079 3.5
6 TM3R 24,257 1,049 4.3
7 RU1A 55,456 1,047 1.9
8 YT5A 78,252 1,001 1.3
9 EA8RM 35,727 955 2.7
10 CA3CLF 982 915 93.2

2016--2025 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 DF0HQ 80,430 2,484 3.1
2 ES9C 73,518 2,326 3.2
3 RM9A 75,589 1,871 2.5
4 JS3CTQ 19,239 1,861 9.7
5 HG7T 69,063 1,751 2.5
6 YT5A 92,617 1,610 1.7
7 UA4M 69,767 1,552 2.2
8 HG6N 51,474 1,491 2.9
9 M6T 96,972 1,479 1.5
10 K3LR 71,706 1,463 2.0

2016--2025 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 CA3CLF 982 93.2
2 PT4Z 1,011 20.3
3 BI3AO 524 12.2
4 DX3EVM 847 12.2
5 OG60F 4,258 11.4
6 BH8GFN 1,625 11.4
7 HB2Y 834 11.3
8 XE1ADY 1,197 10.9
9 BH7PCT 846 10.9
10 YY4RDC 509 10.6

2016--2025 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 R2VM 1,426 100.0
2 UT3NK 528 100.0
3 PE75W 1,408 29.3
4 OG55W 1,605 23.2
5 TA1C/2 1,513 18.1
6 DP65HSC 516 16.9
7 UX8IA 1,375 14.2
8 EB7A 6,198 13.1
9 LX75V 1,348 12.8
10 K3HW 3,645 11.7



2026-04-17

Busting Calls: CQ WW 2024

 Prior posts in this series:


Throughout this post, I apply the procedures developed in the second post above.

For the purpose of this post, only verified QSOs are counted.

Lowest Probability

I begin with an ordered list of the stations with the lowest probabilities of busting a call in 2024 CQ WW SSB.

2024 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 UT7W 0.0006 1,466 0
2 OK6Y 0.0007 1,388 0
3 PA6AA 0.0009 1,074 0
4 SP9XCN 0.0009 2,243 1
5 NS3T 0.0010 976 0
6 KT4XA 0.0010 917 0
7 DL1NEO 0.0011 888 0
8 DJ4MX 0.0011 1,816 1
9 YO4RDW 0.0012 1,704 1
10 SV8SYK 0.0012 801 0

And for 2024 CQ WW CW:

2024 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 OR2F 0.0003 2,925 0
2 NW0M 0.0008 1,200 0
3 DJ4MX 0.0008 2,477 1
4 RA9AP 0.0009 1,073 0
5 DL1NEO 0.0009 1,007 0
6 G6A 0.0010 982 0
7 LY3CY 0.0010 976 0
8 N8HRZ 0.0010 968 0
9 K2EP 0.0010 944 0
10 SM7CIL 0.0010 942 0

It is interesting to plot the aggregated probability function for $p_{bust}$ weighted by the verified number of QSOs, $Q_v$, for all stations:

In case it isn't clear, in the figure above the location of the solid vertical lines represent the weighted means of the probability curves. In 2024, then, there was essentially no difference between these curves for CW and SSB.

We can limit the analysis to calling stations (i.e., not the running station).

2024 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (no-run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 K1ZZ 0.0007 1,393 0
2 UT7W 0.0007 1,385 0
3 SP9XCN 0.0008 1,158 0
4 YO4RDW 0.0009 1,107 0
5 OL0W 0.0009 1,021 0
6 NS3T 0.0010 972 0
7 PA6AA 0.0010 968 0
8 KT4XA 0.0010 914 0
9 DL1NEO 0.0011 884 0
10 N2RC 0.0011 839 0

2024 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (no-run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 DJ4MX 0.0005 1,925 0
2 SP2LNW 0.0006 1,492 0
3 F8CRS 0.0006 1,454 0
4 SP9XCN 0.0007 1,262 0
5 DL4WA 0.0007 1,251 0
6 LA8OM 0.0008 1,160 0
7 EV1R 0.0008 1,120 0
8 DC6O 0.0008 1,112 0
9 N2GC 0.0009 1,102 0
10 PA2A 0.0009 1,102 0

  And similarly for running stations: 

2024 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (no-run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 K1ZZ 0.0007 1,393 0
2 UT7W 0.0007 1,385 0
3 SP9XCN 0.0008 1,158 0
4 YO4RDW 0.0009 1,107 0
5 OL0W 0.0009 1,021 0
6 NS3T 0.0010 972 0
7 PA6AA 0.0010 968 0
8 KT4XA 0.0010 914 0
9 DL1NEO 0.0011 884 0
10 N2RC 0.0011 839 0

2024 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (no-run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 DJ4MX 0.0005 1,925 0
2 SP2LNW 0.0006 1,492 0
3 F8CRS 0.0006 1,454 0
4 SP9XCN 0.0007 1,262 0
5 DL4WA 0.0007 1,251 0
6 LA8OM 0.0008 1,160 0
7 EV1R 0.0008 1,120 0
8 DC6O 0.0008 1,112 0
9 N2GC 0.0009 1,102 0
10 PA2A 0.0009 1,102 0

We can also look at the changes over the period from 2005 to 2023.

First for all QSOs:

Then for calling stations:

And for running stations:

The clear up-tick on CW in 2023 is rather interesting. At first, I thought that it might be due to people logging calls mis-spotted on the various spotting networks. But its presence when one limits the analysis to running stations would seem to make that theory untenable. Perhaps it is due to an increase in entrants using code readers, although one would expect few runners to be using those. So this might be an interesting area for further analysis, should anyone be interested. It really is a quite remarkable year-on-year change -- and especially so, given that in 2024 whatever caused the uptick seems to have gone away. Very odd.

I think it's also interesting to see who appears to have the lowest probability of busting a call over an extended period. So, for the ten years 2015 to 2024:

2015--2024 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 OK1WCF 0.0005 1,726 0
2 R3LC 0.0006 1,655 0
3 ES2MC 0.0006 3,570 1
4 OH7GGX 0.0006 3,287 1
5 UT7W 0.0006 1,466 0
6 IK4OMU 0.0006 1,435 0
7 LU1FAM 0.0007 1,400 0
8 K9PG 0.0007 2,795 1
9 NS3T 0.0008 2,679 1
10 DL5AXX 0.0008 1,234 0

2015--2024 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (all)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 NW0M 0.0002 4,888 0
2 UN4PD 0.0003 2,866 0
3 N0BK 0.0004 2,470 0
4 K9PW 0.0004 2,441 0
5 WB4TDH 0.0004 5,420 1
6 JN3SAC 0.0004 5,358 1
7 K6WSC 0.0004 5,295 1
8 JR3RWB 0.0004 2,092 0
9 AD1C 0.0005 4,339 1
10 DP4X 0.0005 4,132 1

A good argument can be made that a better measure of copying ability is to consider only run QSOs:

2015--2024 CQ WW SSB -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 LU1FAM 0.0007 1,353 0
2 F4FTA 0.0010 996 0
3 R7MM 0.0010 963 0
4 K3CR 0.0010 930 0
5 C6ARW 0.0010 1,925 1
6 BV2A 0.0010 913 0
7 ES2MC 0.0011 1,802 1
8 CF7RR 0.0013 1,557 1
9 DL8RDL 0.0013 738 0
10 TK9R 0.0014 13,326 18

2015--2024 CQ WW CW -- weighted mean values of $p_{bust}$ (run)
Position Call weighted mean $Q_v$ $B$
1 LY3CY 0.0005 1,882 0
2 RA3TT 0.0006 1,593 0
3 JN3SAC 0.0006 1,584 0
4 WB4TDH 0.0007 3,076 1
5 E72U 0.0008 3,893 2
6 OM8ON 0.0009 1,063 0
7 R2VM 0.0009 1,040 0
8 SE6N 0.0009 1,024 0
9 RG5A/6 0.0010 959 0
10 ZR2A/4 0.0010 951 0

Highest Probability

We can also look at the calls associated with the highest probability of busting calls in either the forward or the reverse direction:

2024 SSB -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 TO5A 7,507 253 3.4
2 CN3A 15,940 206 1.3
3 LZ9W 12,353 176 1.4
4 OT5A 8,670 169 1.9
5 D4C 12,889 161 1.2
6 YT5A 11,501 161 1.4
7 9Z4BM 3,910 155 4.0
8 RW0A 6,192 153 2.5
9 PJ2T 9,404 151 1.6
10 CR6K 10,266 149 1.5

2024 CW -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 RW0A 9,296 286 3.1
2 F6KOP 8,756 228 2.6
3 CN3A 15,100 198 1.3
4 JA3YBK 7,681 179 2.3
5 LZ9W 10,792 175 1.6
6 J8AA 2,860 167 5.8
7 3B8M 9,919 155 1.6
8 EI9E 3,972 154 3.9
9 ZF5T 8,650 148 1.7
10 PI4CC 5,745 144 2.5

2024 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 PY3AN 112 22 19.6
2 UB3PEQ 233 43 18.5
3 EY8BN 140 24 17.1
4 YB1BML 102 17 16.7
5 KA7A 112 16 14.3
6 ON4ANT 175 24 13.7
7 YC8GPH 121 16 13.2
8 YB2JPI 114 15 13.2
9 DR2P 239 31 13.0
10 UR4LIN 106 13 12.3

2024 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 KL7NL 170 53 31.2
2 K9WD 201 48 23.9
3 W6WDA 201 43 21.4
4 W3FA 203 42 20.7
5 K4FHI 113 22 19.5
6 DU1AZ 147 27 18.4
7 R0LJC 142 26 18.3
8 KK6IK 100 18 18.0
9 AD7XG 246 44 17.9
10 YV5KG 120 21 17.5

2024 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 CN3A 15,940 364 2.3
2 TM2Y 4,763 362 7.6
3 DF0HQ 11,697 342 2.9
4 JA3YBK 6,079 246 4.0
5 F6KOP 6,044 241 4.0
6 CQ3W 3,382 207 6.1
7 K3LR 10,693 194 1.8
8 SJ2W 7,108 183 2.6
9 9A1A 11,929 173 1.5
10 CR6K 10,266 159 1.5

2024 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 IP2A 7,773 437 5.6
2 DF0HQ 10,184 367 3.6
3 JF1NHD 3,859 319 8.3
4 EF6T 8,821 293 3.3
5 KP2B 5,640 249 4.4
6 HG6N 6,623 246 3.7
7 UA4M 8,189 240 2.9
8 ES9C 8,134 235 2.9
9 K3LR 10,521 234 2.2
10 RU1A 9,948 234 2.4

2024 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 9M6T 232 22.8
2 PY6RL 280 15.0
3 BG8PK 120 12.5
4 LX1UN 139 12.2
5 BI3AO 524 12.2
6 BH8GFN 296 12.2
7 BA2BA 178 11.8
8 TI5LJR 145 11.7
9 NP3KW 142 11.3
10 PD0HGQ 107 11.2

2024 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥100 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 W5HI 202 30.7
2 DB4REB 103 17.5
3 SP2HHX 914 14.8
4 SM3LDP 141 13.5
5 VE3HZ 276 12.3
6 SA5ACN 105 11.4
7 K7HV 108 11.1
8 RD3BZ 127 11.0
9 PA3HHM 219 11.0
10 WZ8T 172 10.5

In tables of reverse busts, one sometimes finds what seems like an unreasonable number of reverse busts (as is the case, for example, for UT3NK in the 2023 CW table). This is generally caused by a discrepancy between the call actually sent by the listed station and the one recorded as being sent in at least some QSOs in the station's log. Other causes of frequent reverse busts are poor sending/audio, unusual calls and calls that are very similar to the call of an active, well-known contester.

Looking at a ten-year period:

2015--2024 SSB -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 LZ9W 95,437 1,602 1.7
2 CN3A 93,003 1,566 1.7
3 PJ2T 73,860 1,298 1.8
4 OT5A 59,657 1,296 2.2
5 YT5A 82,149 1,179 1.4
6 V26B 65,195 1,075 1.6
7 CR6K 62,060 959 1.5
8 CQ8M 32,061 948 3.0
9 II2S 58,654 927 1.6
10 M6T 72,760 927 1.3

2015--2024 CW -- Most Busts
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 TK0C 83,088 1,195 1.4
2 LZ9W 105,335 1,189 1.1
3 PJ2T 93,000 1,177 1.3
4 YT5A 99,485 996 1.0
5 JA3YBK 49,677 958 1.9
6 CN3A 66,780 909 1.4
7 RW0A 46,858 892 1.9
8 F6KOP 32,212 884 2.7
9 PI4CC 41,613 877 2.1
10 M6T 87,047 858 1.0

2015--2024 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 K2JMY 836 134 16.0
2 IS0AGY 638 99 15.5
3 YB2BNN 632 87 13.8
4 OH1TS 692 86 12.4
5 EA1HTF 1,762 177 10.0
6 R9MBY 773 76 9.8
7 EA4GWL 931 91 9.8
8 LU4DJB 672 64 9.5
9 E20WXA 688 64 9.3
10 YO8RKP 632 58 9.2

2015--2024 CW -- Highest Percentage of Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs Busts % Busts
1 W2UDT 564 138 24.5
2 DJ5UZ 723 136 18.8
3 SP2EPV 510 93 18.2
4 DL7CO 827 140 16.9
5 AI2U 555 90 16.2
6 CE6VMO 695 111 16.0
7 LZ1BY 789 124 15.7
8 IK0YUO 670 104 15.5
9 LA6M 814 121 14.9
10 9A/AI6V 1,833 263 14.3

2015--2024 SSB -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 DF0HQ 87,443 2,632 3.0
2 CN3A 93,003 1,431 1.5
3 JA3YBK 34,354 1,208 3.5
4 YT5A 82,149 1,059 1.3
5 TM3R 24,257 1,049 4.3
6 K3LR 68,168 1,044 1.5
7 EA8RM 35,707 955 2.7
8 CA3CLF 982 915 93.2
9 RU1A 49,725 845 1.7
10 9A1A 41,198 845 2.1

2015--2024 CW -- Most Reverse Busts
Position Call QSOs Reverse Busts % Reverse Busts
1 DF0HQ 80,414 2,619 3.3
2 JS3CTQ 20,716 2,231 10.8
3 ES9C 67,652 2,097 3.1
4 RM9A 74,759 1,848 2.5
5 YT5A 99,485 1,723 1.7
6 HG7T 68,884 1,688 2.5
7 HG6N 50,392 1,485 2.9
8 UA4M 67,774 1,450 2.1
9 K3LR 70,955 1,440 2.0
10 R2VM 1,426 1,426 100.0

2015--2024 SSB -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 CA3CLF 982 93.2
2 PT4Z 1,011 20.3
3 BI3AO 524 12.2
4 DX3EVM 847 12.2
5 ZP6DYA 963 12.1
6 OG60F 4,258 11.4
7 OA4DKN 511 11.4
8 BH7PCT 846 10.9
9 PS8HF 537 10.6
10 LU9DDJ 862 10.4

2015--2024 CW -- Highest Percentage of Reverse Busts (≥500 QSOs)
Position Call QSOs % Reverse Busts
1 R2VM 1,426 100.0
2 UT3NK 528 100.0
3 YT65A 1,149 37.2
4 PE75W 1,408 29.3
5 OG55W 2,387 25.6
6 TA1C/2 1,513 18.1
7 DP65HSC 516 16.9
8 5J1E 1,523 15.6
9 SV7CUD 537 14.5
10 F8CRH 946 13.5


2026-04-16

Most-Logged Stations in CQ WW CW and SSB Contests: 2025, and the decade from 2016 to 2025

The public CQ WW CW and SSB logs allow us easily to tabulate the stations that appear in the largest number of entrants' logs. For 2025, the ten stations with the largest number of appearances in CQ WW SSB logs were:

Callsign Appearances % logs
CN3A 15,582 68
ES9C 15,242 67
UA7K 12,765 58
CR3A 12,508 62
P33W 12,248 58
M6T 12,194 58
LZ9W 11,953 56
V26B 11,752 55
II9P 11,353 57
RU1A 11,261 57


The first column in the table is the callsign. The second column is the total number of times that the call appears in logs. That is, for example, if a station worked V26B on six bands, that will increment the value in the second column of the V26B row by six. The third column is the percentage of logs that contain the callsign at least once.

Similarly, the ten stations with the largest number of appearances in CQ WW CW 2025 were:

Callsign Appearances % logs
TK0C 15,843 74
CN3A 15,363 75
CR3A 13,457 70
CR3W 13,147 67
ES9C 13,013 67
PJ4K 12,694 66
ZF5T 12,400 61
M6T 11,982 65
9A1A 11,639 66
PJ2T 11,508 57


I find it interesting to see which stations have had the most long-term activity on the contests. For the ten years from 2016 to 2025 on SSB we find:

Callsign Appearances % logs
CN3A 99,447 52
LZ9W 99,238 55
M6T 88,198 52
DF0HQ 87,426 52
YT5A 78,696 47
PJ2T 76,333 41
P33W 75,148 45
K3LR 70,681 45
V26B 70,490 40
CR6K 68,342 42


And for the same years on CW: 

Callsign Appearances % logs
CR3W 116,962 66
LZ9W 106,651 65
M6T 96,631 57
PJ2T 95,867 52
YT5A 92,472 59
TK0C 91,591 52
9A1A 89,480 53
CN3A 82,187 43
LN8W 81,036 52
DF0HQ 78,816 52

Similar tables from last year may be found here.