Who is better, Portilho or Lorimer?
Gabi Portilho leads with a GOAT score of 82.9 against 82.8 for Peter Lorimer — 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 Gabi Portilho above Peter Lorimer: 82.9 vs 82.8. Gabi Portilho leads on Honours, Peak, Statistics. Peter Lorimer leads on Longevity, Dominance.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Portilho wins: Peak, Honours, Statistics
Lorimer wins: Dominance, Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/gabi-portilho-v-vs-peter-lorimer
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Portilho leads in 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇧🇷 Portilho | 0 | 0 | 50 | 105 | 303 | 640 |
| 🏴 Lorimer | 0 | 0 | 0 | 56 | 270 | 612 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | PortilhoActive | LorimerRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic medals | 1 | — |
| Brazilian league titles | 5 | — |
| Copa Libertadores titles | 3 | — |
| Brazil caps | 40 | — |
| Career goals | 80 | — |
| Goals for Leeds United | — | 238 |
| League titles | — | 2 |
| FA Cups | — | 1 |
| Scotland caps | — | 21 |
| Appearances for Leeds United | — | 703 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 84 |
| Peak w20% | 88 | 84 |
| Longevity w20% | 78 | 86 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 76 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 84 |
Gabi Portilho leads with a GOAT score of 82.9 against 82.8 for Peter Lorimer — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Lorimer scores higher on dominance, longevity. Portilho leads on peak, honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Portilho: 82.9, Lorimer: 82.8.
Make your case for Portilho vs Lorimer. 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.