Who is better, Gómez or Vines?
Andrés Gómez leads with a GOAT score of 81.8 against 81.7 for Ellsworth Vines — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Andrés Gómez above Ellsworth Vines: 81.8 vs 81.7. Andrés Gómez leads on Longevity, Statistics. Ellsworth Vines leads on Dominance, Honours, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Gómez wins: Longevity, Statistics
Vines wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/andres-gomez-vs-ellsworth-vines
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Gómez 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇪🇨 Gómez | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 17 |
| 🇺🇸 Vines | 0 | 0 | 55 | 120 | 378 | 685 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | GómezRetired | VinesRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam singles titles | 1 | — |
| ATP singles titles | 21 | — |
| ATP doubles titles | 33 | — |
| Career-high singles ranking | 4 | — |
| Grand Slam doubles titles | 1 | — |
| Major singles titles | — | 3 |
| US Championships titles | — | 2 |
| Wimbledon titles | — | 1 |
| World professional titles | — | 3 |
| Years ranked world number one | — | 3 |
| Dominance w25% | 74 | 84 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 84 | 66 |
| Honours w20% | 78 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 82 |
Andrés Gómez leads with a GOAT score of 81.8 against 81.7 for Ellsworth Vines — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Vines scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. Gómez leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Gómez: 81.8, Vines: 81.7.
Make your case for Gómez vs Vines. 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.