Who is better, Anisimova or Davenport?
Amanda Anisimova leads with a GOAT score of 81.1 against 81.1 for Lindsay Davenport — 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 Amanda Anisimova and Lindsay Davenport level at 81.1. Amanda Anisimova leads on Peak, Statistics, Dominance. Lindsay Davenport leads on Longevity, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Anisimova wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Davenport wins: Longevity, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/amanda-anisimova-vs-lindsay-davenport
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Anisimova leads in 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Anisimova | 0 | 0 | 0 | 95 | 224 | 499 |
| 🇺🇸 Davenport | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 35 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | AnisimovaActive | DavenportRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam finals | 2 | — |
| WTA singles titles | 4 | — |
| Career high ranking | 4 | — |
| Grand Slam semi-finals | 3 | — |
| WTA 1000 titles | 1 | — |
| Grand Slam titles | — | 3 |
| Olympic golds | — | 1 |
| Career titles | — | 55 |
| Weeks at No. 1 | — | 98 |
| Year-end No. 1 | — | 4 |
| Grand Slam doubles titles | — | 3 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 76 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 85 |
| Longevity w20% | 72 | 84 |
| Honours w20% | 78 | 80 |
| Statistics w15% | 88 | 82 |
Amanda Anisimova leads with a GOAT score of 81.1 against 81.1 for Lindsay Davenport — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Davenport scores higher on honours, longevity. Anisimova leads on peak, dominance, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Anisimova: 81.1, Davenport: 81.1.
Make your case for Anisimova vs Davenport. 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.