Who is better, Evert or Navratilova?
Martina Navratilova leads with a GOAT score of 95.1 against 91.5 for Chris Evert — a gap of 3.6 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Martina Navratilova above Chris Evert: 95.1 vs 91.5. Martina Navratilova leads on Longevity, Honours, Dominance.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Navratilova wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours
Evert wins: no category outright
Shareable URL · /compare/chris-evert-vs-martina-navratilova
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Navratilova leads in 5 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
Setting the pace at age 22
No verified birth date for Evert — shown in the pro-debut view instead.
Every career is cut at the season the athlete turned 22, so a rookie today is measured against exactly what a legend had banked by the same birthday.
| Metric | EvertRetired | NavratilovaRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam titles | 18 | — |
| French Open titles | 7 | — |
| Career titles | 157 | — |
| Weeks at No. 1 | 260 | 332 |
| Match wins | 1,309 | — |
| Grand Slam semi-finals | 52 | — |
| Grand Slam singles titles | — | 18 |
| Grand Slam doubles titles | — | 31 |
| Career singles titles | — | 167 |
| Match win % | — | 90.1% |
| Wimbledon titles | — | 9 |
| Dominance w25% | 91 | 95 |
| Peak w20% | 91 | 94 |
| Longevity w20% | 92 | 97 |
| Honours w20% | 91 | 96 |
| Statistics w15% | 93 | 93 |
Martina Navratilova leads with a GOAT score of 95.1 against 91.5 for Chris Evert — a gap of 3.6 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Evert does not lead any of the five categories; Navratilova is ahead or level on all of them.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Evert: 91.5, Navratilova: 95.1.
Make your case for Evert vs Navratilova. 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.