Who is better, Aui_2000 or w0nderful?
Ihor "w0nderful" Zhdanov leads with a GOAT score of 83.7 against 83.6 for Aui_2000 — 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 Ihor "w0nderful" Zhdanov above Aui_2000: 83.7 vs 83.6. Ihor "w0nderful" Zhdanov leads on Statistics, Dominance, Peak. Aui_2000 leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →w0nderful wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Aui_2000 wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/aui-2000-d2-vs-es-wonderful
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
w0nderful 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇨🇦 Aui_2000 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 123 | 298 | 646 |
| 🇺🇦 w0nderful | 0 | 0 | 60 | 138 | 418 | 506 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 split year periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | Aui_2000Retired | w0nderfulActive |
|---|---|---|
| The International titles | 1 | — |
| Major titles | 2 | — |
| TI appearances | 5 | — |
| TI top-four finishes | 2 | — |
| Career prize money (USD m) | 2 | — |
| Majors won | — | 1 |
| Big tournament titles | — | 6 |
| HLTV top-20 placements | — | 2 |
| Tournament MVP awards | — | 1 |
| Seasons played | — | 5 |
| Dominance w25% | 82 | 84 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 78 | 68 |
| Honours w20% | 86 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 82 | 90 |
Ihor "w0nderful" Zhdanov leads with a GOAT score of 83.7 against 83.6 for Aui_2000 — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Aui_2000 scores higher on longevity. w0nderful leads on peak, dominance, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Aui_2000: 83.6, w0nderful: 83.7.
Make your case for Aui_2000 vs w0nderful. 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.