Who is better, Cavanaugh or Borodin?
Chris Cavanaugh leads with a GOAT score of 72.6 against 71.7 for Ilya Borodin — a gap of 0.9 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Chris Cavanaugh above Ilya Borodin: 72.6 vs 71.7. Chris Cavanaugh leads on Honours, Longevity. Ilya Borodin leads on Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Cavanaugh wins: Longevity, Honours
Borodin wins: Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/chris-cavanaugh-vs-ilya-borodin
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Cavanaugh 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Cavanaugh | 0 | 0 | 60 | 132 | 304 | 544 |
| 🇷🇺 Borodin | 0 | 0 | 62 | 140 | 392 | 538 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | CavanaughRetired | BorodinActive |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic gold medals | 1 | — |
| World records in relays | 1 | — |
| Pan American Games medals | 2 | — |
| US national podiums | 4 | — |
| Olympic Games contested | 1 | — |
| European titles | — | 1 |
| European junior titles | — | 3 |
| Personal best 400 IM (min) | — | 4.095 |
| National titles | — | 4 |
| World junior records | — | 1 |
| Dominance w25% | 68 | 68 |
| Peak w20% | 84 | 84 |
| Longevity w20% | 64 | 62 |
| Honours w20% | 76 | 72 |
| Statistics w15% | 72 | 74 |
Chris Cavanaugh leads with a GOAT score of 72.6 against 71.7 for Ilya Borodin — a gap of 0.9 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Borodin scores higher on statistics. Cavanaugh leads on honours, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Cavanaugh: 72.6, Borodin: 71.7.
Make your case for Cavanaugh vs Borodin. 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.