Who is better, dev1ce or Faker?
Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads with a GOAT score of 97.5 against 90.2 for Nicolai "dev1ce" Reedtz — a gap of 7.3 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok above Nicolai "dev1ce" Reedtz: 97.5 vs 90.2. Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads on Longevity, Peak, Dominance.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Faker wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours, Statistics
dev1ce wins: no category outright
Shareable URL · /compare/device-vs-faker
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Faker 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 21
dev1ce is -57.1% behind Faker's pace at age 21
Every career is cut at the season the athlete turned 21, so a rookie today is measured against exactly what a legend had banked by the same birthday.
| Metric | dev1ceActive · Astralis | FakerActive · T1 (SK Telecom T1) |
|---|---|---|
| Major titles | 4 | — |
| Intel Grand Slams | 1 | — |
| HLTV top-20 appearances | 9 | — |
| Career rating 2.0 | 1.15 | — |
| Big event MVPs | 13 | — |
| Career prize money (M$) | 2 | 1.6 |
| World Championships | — | 5 |
| MSI titles | — | 2 |
| Domestic league titles | — | 10 |
| Career KDA | — | 5.1 |
| Pro seasons | — | 12 |
| Dominance w25% | 92 | 98 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 97 |
| Longevity w20% | 86 | 99 |
| Honours w20% | 94 | 99 |
| Statistics w15% | 88 | 93 |
Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads with a GOAT score of 97.5 against 90.2 for Nicolai "dev1ce" Reedtz — a gap of 7.3 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
dev1ce does not lead any of the five categories; Faker is ahead or level on all of them.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. dev1ce: 90.2, Faker: 97.5.
Make your case for dev1ce vs Faker. 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.