Who is better, electronic or Larl?
Denis "electronic" Sharipov leads with a GOAT score of 86.2 against 86.2 for Larl — 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 Denis "electronic" Sharipov and Larl level at 86.2. Denis "electronic" Sharipov leads on Longevity, Statistics. Larl leads on Honours, Dominance, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →electronic wins: Longevity, Statistics
Larl wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/electronic-cs-vs-larl-d2
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
electronic 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇷🇺 electronic | 0 | 0 | 68 | 152 | 334 | 776 |
| 🇷🇺 Larl | 0 | 0 | 60 | 127 | 372 | 744 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 split year periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | electronicActive | LarlActive |
|---|---|---|
| Major titles | 1 | 3 |
| Major MVP awards | 1 | — |
| HLTV top-20 placements | 6 | — |
| Big event titles | 15 | — |
| Professional seasons | 10 | — |
| The International titles | — | 1 |
| TI appearances | — | 3 |
| Premier tournament wins | — | 6 |
| Career prize money (USD m) | — | 3 |
| Dominance w25% | 84 | 86 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 93 |
| Longevity w20% | 82 | 76 |
| Honours w20% | 86 | 90 |
| Statistics w15% | 88 | 86 |
Denis "electronic" Sharipov leads with a GOAT score of 86.2 against 86.2 for Larl — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Larl scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. electronic leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. electronic: 86.2, Larl: 86.2.
Make your case for electronic vs Larl. 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.