Who is better, NAF or Faker?
Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads with a GOAT score of 97.5 against 89.6 for Keith "NAF" Markovic — a gap of 7.9 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 Keith "NAF" Markovic: 97.5 vs 89.6. Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads on Dominance, Longevity, Honours. Keith "NAF" Markovic leads on Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Faker wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours
NAF wins: Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/es-naf-vs-faker
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Faker 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 NAF — 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 | NAFActive | FakerActive · T1 (SK Telecom T1) |
|---|---|---|
| Majors won | 1 | — |
| Intel Grand Slam titles | 1 | — |
| Big tournament titles | 22 | — |
| HLTV top-20 placements | 5 | — |
| Seasons played | 12 | — |
| World Championships | — | 5 |
| MSI titles | — | 2 |
| Domestic league titles | — | 10 |
| Career KDA | — | 5.1 |
| Pro seasons | — | 12 |
| Career prize money (M$) | — | 1.6 |
| Dominance w25% | 86 | 98 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 97 |
| Longevity w20% | 88 | 99 |
| Honours w20% | 90 | 99 |
| Statistics w15% | 94 | 93 |
Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads with a GOAT score of 97.5 against 89.6 for Keith "NAF" Markovic — a gap of 7.9 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
NAF scores higher on statistics. Faker leads on peak, dominance, honours, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. NAF: 89.6, Faker: 97.5.
Make your case for NAF 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.