Who is better, Hopkin or Ledecky?
Katie Ledecky leads with a GOAT score of 94.8 against 82.1 for Anna Hopkin — a gap of 12.7 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Katie Ledecky above Anna Hopkin: 94.8 vs 82.1. Katie Ledecky leads on Dominance, Longevity, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Ledecky wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours, Statistics
Hopkin wins: no category outright
Shareable URL · /compare/anna-hopkin-vs-ledecky
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Ledecky leads in 5 of 5 weighted categories.
Hopkin — Insufficient verified career data to calculate a reliable GOAT Score.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
Setting the pace at age 21
No verified birth date for Hopkin — shown in the pro-debut view instead.
Every career is cut at the season the athlete turned 21, so a rookie today is measured against exactly what a legend had banked by the same birthday.
| Metric | HopkinActive | LedeckyActive |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic gold medals | 1 | — |
| World Championship titles | 2 | — |
| European titles | 2 | — |
| British records set | 2 | — |
| Commonwealth medals | 2 | — |
| Olympic golds | — | 9 |
| Olympic medals | — | 14 |
| World titles (LC) | — | 21 |
| World records set | — | 16 |
| Olympic Games | — | 4 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 97 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 96 |
| Longevity w20% | 76 | 90 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 96 |
| Statistics w15% | 84 | 94 |
Katie Ledecky leads with a GOAT score of 94.8 against 82.1 for Anna Hopkin — a gap of 12.7 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Hopkin does not lead any of the five categories; Ledecky is ahead or level on all of them.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Hopkin: 82.1, Ledecky: 94.8.
Make your case for Hopkin vs Ledecky. 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.