Who is better, PraY or Faker?
Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads with a GOAT score of 97.5 against 87.8 for Kim "PraY" Jong-in — a gap of 9.7 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 Kim "PraY" Jong-in: 97.5 vs 87.8. Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads on Longevity, Dominance, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Faker wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours, Statistics
PraY wins: no category outright
Shareable URL · /compare/es-pray-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
No verified birth date for PraY — 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 | PraYRetired | FakerActive · T1 (SK Telecom T1) |
|---|---|---|
| LCK titles | 2 | — |
| World Championship finals | 1 | — |
| World Championship appearances | 5 | — |
| Seasons played | 8 | — |
| Career kills | 3,000 | — |
| 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% | 84 | 99 |
| Honours w20% | 88 | 99 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 93 |
Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads with a GOAT score of 97.5 against 87.8 for Kim "PraY" Jong-in — a gap of 9.7 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
PraY 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. PraY: 87.8, Faker: 97.5.
Make your case for PraY 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.