Who is better, Harmon or Sagström?
Claude Harmon leads with a GOAT score of 75.7 against 75.7 for Madelene Sagström — 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 Claude Harmon and Madelene Sagström level at 75.7. Claude Harmon leads on Peak, Longevity. Madelene Sagström leads on Dominance, Honours, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Harmon wins: Peak, Longevity
Sagström wins: Dominance, Honours, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/claude-harmon-vs-madelene-sagstrom
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Harmon leads in 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Harmon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 🇸🇪 Sagström | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HarmonRetired | SagströmActive |
|---|---|---|
| Major titles | 1 | — |
| Masters winning margin | 5 | — |
| Ryder Cup appearances | 1 | — |
| Professional wins | 6 | — |
| Career span in years | 31 | — |
| LPGA Tour wins | — | 1 |
| Symetra Tour wins | — | 2 |
| Solheim Cup appearances | — | 3 |
| LPGA seasons | — | 10 |
| Career best world ranking | — | 27 |
| Dominance w25% | 64 | 68 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 84 |
| Longevity w20% | 80 | 76 |
| Honours w20% | 68 | 72 |
| Statistics w15% | 78 | 82 |
Claude Harmon leads with a GOAT score of 75.7 against 75.7 for Madelene Sagström — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Sagström scores higher on dominance, honours, statistics. Harmon leads on peak, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Harmon: 75.7, Sagström: 75.7.
Make your case for Harmon vs Sagström. 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.