Who is better, Alcaraz or Muster?
Carlos Alcaraz leads with a GOAT score of 83.1 against 83.1 for Thomas Muster — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores Carlos Alcaraz and Thomas Muster level at 83.1. Carlos Alcaraz leads on Dominance, Statistics, Honours. Thomas Muster leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Alcaraz wins: Dominance, Honours, Statistics
Muster wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/alcaraz-vs-thomas-muster
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Alcaraz leads in 4 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇪🇸 Alcaraz | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 17 |
| 🇦🇹 Muster | 0 | 0 | 45 | 95 | 277 | 592 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | AlcarazActive | MusterRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam titles | 6 | — |
| Weeks at No. 1 | 40 | — |
| Career titles | 22 | — |
| Masters 1000 titles | 8 | — |
| Olympic medals | 1 | — |
| Year-end No. 1 | 1 | — |
| Major singles titles | — | 1 |
| Career singles titles | — | 44 |
| Clay-court titles | — | 40 |
| Weeks at world number one | — | 6 |
| Consecutive clay wins in 1995 | — | 40 |
| Dominance w25% | 86 | 82 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 66 | 76 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 82 |
| Statistics w15% | 88 | 84 |
Carlos Alcaraz leads with a GOAT score of 83.1 against 83.1 for Thomas Muster — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Muster scores higher on longevity. Alcaraz leads on dominance, honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Alcaraz: 83.1, Muster: 83.1.
Make your case for Alcaraz vs Muster. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.