Not against a standards table somebody invented. Against 1.8 million real competition results, filtered to the people you would actually be lifting against. Pick the pool and the answer changes, which is the honest part: a percentile is only worth anything if you know who is in it.
Want the entry bar instead? Qualifying totals is what British Powerlifting asks for. This is what everybody else did.
The data is OpenPowerlifting's, and it is public domain. They release their results into the public domain and their code under AGPLv3, so the numbers here are theirs and none of the code is. Attribution is requested rather than required, and it is given gladly: openpowerlifting.org is the reason a lifter can answer this question at all.
1,849,065 full-power results out of four million rows. Only meets where a lifter completed all three lifts and posted a total, with disqualifications, no-shows and doping disqualifications removed. A bombed-out day is not a total and does not belong in a distribution of them.
Weight classes are worked out from bodyweight, not read off the result. The recorded class is whatever the lifter competed in, and those changed in 2011 and differ between federations, so pooling them would compare a modern 93 against a historic 90. Everyone is placed in the current IPF classes, the same ones the qualifying total page uses.
Thin cells are omitted rather than shown. A percentile off forty results is noise wearing a number, so any pool with under fifty results says so instead of answering.
What this cannot tell you. It is a distribution of people who entered a competition, which is not the same as a distribution of people who lift. Everyone in it turned up, paid an entry fee and put three lifts on a platform, so the median here is a competitor's median and not a gym's. That makes it the right comparison if you compete and a flattering one if you do not.
Knowing where you sit is worth an afternoon. Moving is worth a programme. Your first meet if the answer made you want to enter one.
Work with DQ