2027 WNBA DraftDeveloping live consensus
2027 WNBA Mock Draft Consensus and Big Board
The consensus, source by source.
Compare the public 2027 WNBA mock drafts currently available and see each prospect’s projected range. Every vote links to the original work.
8Eligible mocks11 exact-year records reviewed
8Analysts8 independent publications
60Tracked prospectsUnique names across all eligible mocks
LiveLast refreshOct 19, 2026
Read this board correctly
2027 WNBA mock draft sources and dates
8 eligible mocks from 8 publications contribute to this board. 11 exact-year source records were reviewed; metadata-only and superseded records do not vote.
Eligible source publication dates: – . Snapshot calculated: . Snapshot time marks a consensus refresh, not a new publication date for each source.
Future team order is unsettled and some sources publish prospect boards without team assignments. The rank therefore prioritizes where players are selected, while the most-common team is shown only when sources actually supply one.
Review the included mocks · Read the calculation methodology
Unique-player assignment
Open expanded metrics →
2027 consensus board
Ranked by weighted average selection; each prospect appears once.
48 of 60 tracked shown
This ranking displays the top 48 prospects. The 60 tracked total includes every unique player appearing in an eligible source mock.
RankProspectProjected teamAvg.MedianRangeMocksConfidence
1
JWJuJu WatkinsG · USC
Houston CometsMost common
1.0weighted
1.0pick
1–1Tight range
8/8100% appearance
100Strong consensus
2
MBMadison BookerF · Texas
Toronto TempoMost common
2.6weighted
2.5pick
2–4Tight range
8/8100% appearance
99Strong consensus
3
HHHannah HidalgoG · Notre Dame
Toronto TempoMost common
2.7weighted
2.5pick
2–4Tight range
8/8100% appearance
99Strong consensus
4
SNS'Mya NicholsG · Kansas
Dallas WingsMost common
4.6weighted
4.0pick
3–7Tight range
7/888% appearance
90Strong consensus
5
MWMikaylah WilliamsG · LSU
Washington MysticsMost common
6.7weighted
6.0pick
4–16Wide range
8/8100% appearance
92Strong consensus
6
MFMiLaysia FulwileyG · LSU
Chicago SkyMost common
7.1weighted
6.0pick
5–14Moderate range
8/8100% appearance
94Strong consensus
7
ACAudi CrooksC · Iowa State
Portland FireMost common
7.3weighted
6.5pick
3–13Moderate range
4/850% appearance
59Moderate consensus
8
OOOluchi OkananwaG · Maryland
Los Angeles SparksMost common
8.3weighted
8.5pick
5–11Moderate range
6/875% appearance
81Strong consensus
9
AWAshlyn WatkinsF · South Carolina
Minnesota LynxMost common
8.7weighted
9.0pick
7–10Tight range
5/863% appearance
73Moderate consensus
10
TSTALIAH SCOTT— · School not supplied
New York LibertyMost common
9.0weighted
9.0pick
9–9Tight range
1/813% appearance
37Single-source signal
11
CSClara StrackC · Kentucky
Indiana FeverMost common
9.5weighted
9.5pick
5–14Moderate range
8/8100% appearance
94Strong consensus
12
TCTalaysia CooperG · Ole Miss
Chicago SkyMost common
9.6weighted
9.0pick
7–14Moderate range
7/888% appearance
88Strong consensus
13
ZZZhang ZiyuC · China
New York LibertyMost common
9.6weighted
9.5pick
4–15Wide range
2/825% appearance
40Early evidence
14
MBMikayla BlakesG · Vanderbilt
Chicago Sky*Most common
10.0weighted
10.0pick
10–10Tight range
1/813% appearance
37Single-source signal
15
NANunu Agara— · Stanford
Dallas WingsMost common
11.0weighted
11.0pick
10–12Tight range
2/825% appearance
46Early evidence
16
DPDaniele Paunksnyte— · Lithuania
Phoenix MercuryMost common
11.0weighted
11.0pick
11–11Tight range
1/813% appearance
37Single-source signal
17
GSGrace Slaughter— · Missouri
—No team supplied
11.0weighted
11.0pick
11–11Tight range
1/813% appearance
37Single-source signal
18
LMLiv McGillG · Florida
Indiana FeverMost common
11.0weighted
11.0pick
11–11Tight range
1/813% appearance
37Single-source signal
19
CKChloe KittsF · South Carolina
Golden State ValkyriesMost common
11.5weighted
12.0pick
8–14Moderate range
5/863% appearance
71Moderate consensus
20
TJTessa JohnsonG · South Carolina
Seattle StormMost common
11.7weighted
11.0pick
6–24Wide range
7/888% appearance
81Strong consensus
21
KJKymora Johnson— · Virginia Transfer
Chicago SkyMost common
11.7weighted
13.0pick
9–13Tight range
3/838% appearance
54Weak consensus
22
SCSarah CisséC · France
Chicago Sky (via Atlanta)Most common
11.7weighted
12.0pick
8–14Moderate range
3/838% appearance
52Weak consensus
23
KPKhamil PierrePF · NC State
Minnesota LynxMost common
11.9weighted
15.0pick
4–15Wide range
5/863% appearance
68Moderate consensus
24
SSSayvia Sellers— · Washington
—No team supplied
12.0weighted
12.0pick
12–12Tight range
1/813% appearance
37Single-source signal
25
JCJustice CarltonF · Texas
Dallas Wings*Most common
13.0weighted
13.0pick
13–13Tight range
1/813% appearance
37Single-source signal
26
ARAinhoa RisacherSG · F, France
Golden State ValkyriesMost common
13.3weighted
13.0pick
13–14Tight range
3/838% appearance
56Moderate consensus
27
TGTimea GardinerC · UCLA
Dallas WingsMost common
13.8weighted
13.5pick
12–15Tight range
2/825% appearance
45Early evidence
28
IBImari BerryG · Louisville
Golden State ValkyrieMost common
14.0weighted
14.0pick
14–14Tight range
1/813% appearance
37Single-source signal
29
ABAddy BrownSF · Iowa State
—No team supplied
14.5weighted
14.0pick
12–18Moderate range
3/838% appearance
52Weak consensus
30
ZBZoe Brooks— · NC State
—No team supplied
15.0weighted
15.0pick
15–15Tight range
2/825% appearance
47Early evidence
31
MCMorgan CheliG · UConn
Minnesota LynxMost common
15.0weighted
15.0pick
15–15Tight range
1/813% appearance
37Single-source signal
32
AHAvery HowellG · Washington
Houston CometsMost common
16.0weighted
16.0pick
16–16Tight range
1/250% appearance
61Single-source signal
33
APAyanna PattersonF · UConn
Washington MysticsMost common
17.0weighted
17.0pick
17–17Tight range
1/250% appearance
61Single-source signal
34
NPNatalie Potts— · Nebraska
—No team supplied
17.0weighted
17.0pick
17–17Tight range
1/250% appearance
61Single-source signal
35
MBMcKinna Brackens— · Arizona State
—No team supplied
19.0weighted
19.0pick
19–19Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
36
GGGrace Grocholski— · Minnesota
—No team supplied
20.0weighted
20.0pick
20–20Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
37
ECEssence Cody— · Alabama
—No team supplied
21.0weighted
21.0pick
21–21Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
38
FTFadima Tall— · Princeton
—No team supplied
22.0weighted
22.0pick
22–22Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
39
CBCarys Baker— · Virginia Tech
—No team supplied
23.0weighted
23.0pick
23–23Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
40
SWSahara Williams— · Oklahoma
—No team supplied
25.0weighted
25.0pick
25–25Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
41
SFSkylar Forbes— · Marquette
—No team supplied
26.0weighted
26.0pick
26–26Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
42
JWJada Williams— · Iowa State
—No team supplied
27.0weighted
27.0pick
27–27Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
43
RJRashunda Jones— · Michigan State
—No team supplied
28.0weighted
28.0pick
28–28Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
44
JBJalynn Bristow— · Texas Tech
—No team supplied
29.0weighted
29.0pick
29–29Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
45
TDTara Daye— · Purdue
—No team supplied
30.0weighted
30.0pick
30–30Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
46
DHDonovyn Hunter— · TCU
—No team supplied
31.0weighted
31.0pick
31–31Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
47
JPJessica Petrie— · Nebraska
—No team supplied
32.0weighted
32.0pick
32–32Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
48
RRReese Ross— · Utah
—No team supplied
33.0weighted
33.0pick
33–33Tight range
1/1100% appearance
92Single-source signal
No prospects match those filters.
Across the draft network
Compare related mock draft consensus boards
Move between adjacent NFL, NBA and WNBA draft classes without losing the source-attributed context.
Read this board correctly
Early projections are signal, not certainty.
Future team order is unsettled and some sources publish prospect boards without team assignments. The rank therefore prioritizes where players are selected, while the most-common team is shown only when sources actually supply one.
Calculation details