Who is better, Matthews or Eliasson?
Auston Matthews leads with a GOAT score of 81.1 against 81.1 for Emma Eliasson — 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 Auston Matthews and Emma Eliasson level at 81.1. Auston Matthews leads on Dominance, Statistics, Peak. Emma Eliasson leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Matthews wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Eliasson wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/auston-matthews-vs-emma-eliasson
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Matthews 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Matthews | 0 | 0 | 69 | 132 | 285 | 727 |
| 🇸🇪 Eliasson | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 72 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | MatthewsActive · Toronto Maple Leafs | EliassonRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Rocket Richard Trophies | 3 | — |
| Hart Trophies | 1 | — |
| NHL goals | 400 | — |
| Calder Trophy | 1 | — |
| 50-goal seasons | 3 | — |
| All-Star selections | 6 | — |
| Olympic medals | — | 1 |
| Olympic appearances | — | 3 |
| World Championship medals | — | 1 |
| Sweden caps | — | 180 |
| SDHL titles | — | 3 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 74 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 72 | 86 |
| Honours w20% | 76 | 76 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 84 |
Auston Matthews leads with a GOAT score of 81.1 against 81.1 for Emma Eliasson — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Eliasson scores higher on longevity. Matthews leads on peak, dominance, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Matthews: 81.1, Eliasson: 81.1.
Make your case for Matthews vs Eliasson. 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.