Who is better, Faker or Nisha?
Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads with a GOAT score of 97.5 against 83.0 for Michał "Nisha" Jankowski — a gap of 14.5 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 Michał "Nisha" Jankowski: 97.5 vs 83.0. Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads on Longevity, Dominance, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Faker wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours, Statistics
Nisha wins: no category outright
Shareable URL · /compare/faker-vs-nisha-dota
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 Nisha — 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 | FakerActive · T1 (SK Telecom T1) | NishaActive |
|---|---|---|
| World Championships | 5 | — |
| MSI titles | 2 | — |
| Domestic league titles | 10 | — |
| Career KDA | 5.1 | — |
| Pro seasons | 12 | — |
| Career prize money (M$) | 1.6 | — |
| Major titles | — | 4 |
| Major finals | — | 7 |
| The International appearances | — | 6 |
| Career prize money (USD m) | — | 2.5 |
| Professional seasons | — | 9 |
| Dominance w25% | 98 | 80 |
| Peak w20% | 97 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 99 | 80 |
| Honours w20% | 99 | 82 |
| Statistics w15% | 93 | 84 |
Lee "Faker" Sang-hyeok leads with a GOAT score of 97.5 against 83.0 for Michał "Nisha" Jankowski — a gap of 14.5 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Nisha 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. Faker: 97.5, Nisha: 83.0.
Make your case for Faker vs Nisha. 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.