Who is better, Gauff or Marino?
Coco Gauff leads with a GOAT score of 72.5 against 70.9 for Rebecca Marino — a gap of 1.6 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Coco Gauff above Rebecca Marino: 72.5 vs 70.9. Coco Gauff leads on Dominance, Honours, Peak. Rebecca Marino leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Gauff wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Marino wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/coco-gauff-vs-rebecca-marino
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Gauff leads in 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Gauff | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 12 |
| 🇨🇦 Marino | 0 | 0 | 0 | 300 | 468 | 1,678 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | GauffActive | MarinoActive |
|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam titles | 2 | — |
| WTA Finals titles | 1 | — |
| Career singles titles | 11 | — |
| Best world ranking | 2 | — |
| Grand Slam doubles titles | 1 | — |
| Highest WTA singles ranking | — | 38 |
| ITF singles titles | — | 10 |
| Grand Slam third rounds | — | 1 |
| Billie Jean King Cup ties | — | 12 |
| Professional years | — | 15 |
| Dominance w25% | 74 | 60 |
| Peak w20% | 86 | 80 |
| Longevity w20% | 52 | 78 |
| Honours w20% | 72 | 60 |
| Statistics w15% | 80 | 82 |
Coco Gauff leads with a GOAT score of 72.5 against 70.9 for Rebecca Marino — a gap of 1.6 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Marino scores higher on statistics, longevity. Gauff leads on peak, dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Gauff: 72.5, Marino: 70.9.
Make your case for Gauff vs Marino. 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.