Who is better, Eguchi or Ekholm?
Fujie Eguchi leads with a GOAT score of 82.8 against 82.8 for Matilda Ekholm — 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 Fujie Eguchi and Matilda Ekholm level at 82.8. Fujie Eguchi leads on Dominance, Peak, Honours. Matilda Ekholm leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Eguchi wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours, Statistics
Ekholm wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/fujie-eguchi-vs-matilda-ekholm
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Eguchi 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇯🇵 Eguchi | 0 | 0 | 8 | 9 | 15 | 20 |
| 🇸🇪 Ekholm | 0 | 0 | 45 | 94 | 261 | 533 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | EguchiRetired | EkholmRetired |
|---|---|---|
| World singles titles | 2 | — |
| World Championship golds | 4 | — |
| World Championship medals | 6 | — |
| National titles | 3 | — |
| Career highest world ranking | 1 | — |
| European Championship titles | — | 2 |
| European medals | — | 4 |
| Swedish titles | — | 9 |
| Olympic appearances | — | 2 |
| World ranking peak | — | 16 |
| Dominance w25% | 86 | 76 |
| Peak w20% | 94 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 62 | 88 |
| Honours w20% | 86 | 80 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 84 |
Fujie Eguchi leads with a GOAT score of 82.8 against 82.8 for Matilda Ekholm — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Ekholm scores higher on longevity. Eguchi leads on peak, dominance, honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Eguchi: 82.8, Ekholm: 82.8.
Make your case for Eguchi vs Ekholm. 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.