Who is better, Argüello or Beterbiev?
Alexis Argüello leads with a GOAT score of 89.4 against 89.4 for Artur Beterbiev — 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 Alexis Argüello and Artur Beterbiev level at 89.4. Alexis Argüello leads on Longevity, Honours. Artur Beterbiev leads on Dominance, Statistics, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Argüello wins: Longevity, Honours
Beterbiev wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/alexis-arguello-vs-artur-beterbiev
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Argüello leads in 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇳🇮 Argüello | 0 | 0 | 40 | 86 | 195 | 569 |
| 🇨🇦 Beterbiev | 0 | 0 | 72 | 150 | 406 | 778 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 year periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | ArgüelloRetired | BeterbievActive |
|---|---|---|
| World titles in weight classes | 3 | — |
| Professional wins | 82 | 21 |
| Knockouts | 65 | — |
| Title defences | 18 | — |
| Professional bouts | 90 | — |
| World titles won | — | 4 |
| Undisputed championships | — | 1 |
| Knockout percentage | — | 95 |
| World amateur titles | — | 2 |
| Dominance w25% | 88 | 92 |
| Peak w20% | 94 | 96 |
| Longevity w20% | 84 | 78 |
| Honours w20% | 90 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 92 | 96 |
Alexis Argüello leads with a GOAT score of 89.4 against 89.4 for Artur Beterbiev — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Beterbiev scores higher on peak, dominance, statistics. Argüello leads on honours, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Argüello: 89.4, Beterbiev: 89.4.
Make your case for Argüello vs Beterbiev. 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.