Who is better, Mihajlović or Abramova?
Brankica Mihajlović leads with a GOAT score of 82.7 against 82.6 for Nelli Abramova — 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 Brankica Mihajlović above Nelli Abramova: 82.7 vs 82.6. Brankica Mihajlović leads on Longevity. Nelli Abramova leads on Statistics, Dominance, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Mihajlović wins: Longevity
Abramova wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/brankica-mihajlovic-vs-nelli-abramova
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Mihajlović leads in 1 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇷🇸 Mihajlović | 0 | 0 | 50 | 110 | 258 | 708 |
| 🇷🇺 Abramova | 0 | 0 | 55 | 120 | 278 | 636 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | MihajlovićActive | AbramovaRetired |
|---|---|---|
| World Championship titles | 2 | — |
| Olympic medals | 2 | 1 |
| European titles | 2 | 2 |
| Nations League medals | 2 | — |
| Years with the national team | 17 | — |
| World Championship gold medals | — | 1 |
| Soviet league titles | — | 4 |
| National team years | — | 9 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 80 |
| Peak w20% | 88 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 84 | 74 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 80 | 84 |
Brankica Mihajlović leads with a GOAT score of 82.7 against 82.6 for Nelli Abramova — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Abramova scores higher on peak, dominance, honours, statistics. Mihajlović leads on longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Mihajlović: 82.7, Abramova: 82.6.
Make your case for Mihajlović vs Abramova. 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.