Who is better, Dementieva or Clijsters?
Elena Dementieva leads with a GOAT score of 80.8 against 80.7 for Kim Clijsters — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Elena Dementieva above Kim Clijsters: 80.8 vs 80.7. Elena Dementieva leads on Statistics, Peak. Kim Clijsters leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Dementieva wins: Peak, Statistics
Clijsters wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/elena-dementieva-vs-kim-clijsters
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Dementieva leads in 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇷🇺 Dementieva | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 17 |
| 🇧🇪 Clijsters | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 31 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | DementievaRetired | ClijstersRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic golds | 1 | — |
| WTA titles | 16 | — |
| Grand Slam finals | 2 | — |
| Fed Cup titles | 3 | — |
| Career-high ranking | 3 | — |
| Grand Slam titles | — | 4 |
| US Open titles | — | 3 |
| Career titles | — | 41 |
| Weeks at No. 1 | — | 20 |
| Tour Finals titles | — | 3 |
| Grand Slam doubles titles | — | 2 |
| Dominance w25% | 76 | 76 |
| Peak w20% | 88 | 87 |
| Longevity w20% | 78 | 80 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 80 |
| Statistics w15% | 84 | 82 |
Elena Dementieva leads with a GOAT score of 80.8 against 80.7 for Kim Clijsters — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Clijsters scores higher on longevity. Dementieva leads on peak, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Dementieva: 80.8, Clijsters: 80.7.
Make your case for Dementieva vs Clijsters. 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.