Who is better, Duplantis or G. Dibaba?
Armand Duplantis leads with a GOAT score of 86.3 against 86.3 for Genzebe Dibaba — 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 Armand Duplantis and Genzebe Dibaba level at 86.3. Armand Duplantis leads on Dominance, Statistics, Peak. Genzebe Dibaba leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Duplantis wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours, Statistics
G. Dibaba wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/duplantis-vs-genzebe-dibaba
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Duplantis leads in 4 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
Setting the pace at age 21
No verified birth date for G. Dibaba — shown in the pro-debut view instead.
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 | DuplantisActive | G. DibabaRetired |
|---|---|---|
| World records | 13 | — |
| Olympic golds | 2 | — |
| World golds (outdoor) | 3 | — |
| World golds (indoor) | 2 | — |
| European golds | 3 | — |
| Diamond League titles | 6 | — |
| Best height (m) | 6.3 | — |
| 6.00m+ clearances | 100 | — |
| World record 1500 m | — | 3.501 |
| World Championship golds | — | 1 |
| World Indoor golds | — | 3 |
| World records set | — | 5 |
| Olympic silver medals | — | 1 |
| Dominance w25% | 94 | 86 |
| Peak w20% | 97 | 94 |
| Longevity w20% | 62 | 80 |
| Honours w20% | 86 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 92 | 88 |
Armand Duplantis leads with a GOAT score of 86.3 against 86.3 for Genzebe Dibaba — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
G. Dibaba scores higher on longevity. Duplantis leads on peak, dominance, honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Duplantis: 86.3, G. Dibaba: 86.3.
Make your case for Duplantis vs G. Dibaba. 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.