Who is better, Ivanišević or Petrova?
Goran Ivanišević leads with a GOAT score of 82.2 against 82.2 for Nadia Petrova — 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 Goran Ivanišević and Nadia Petrova level at 82.2. Goran Ivanišević leads on Peak, Honours, Dominance. Nadia Petrova leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Ivanišević wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Petrova wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/goran-ivanisevic-vs-nadia-petrova
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Ivanišević 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇭🇷 Ivanišević | 0 | 0 | 55 | 113 | 238 | 608 |
| 🇷🇺 Petrova | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70 | 102 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | IvaniševićRetired | PetrovaRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Major singles titles | 1 | — |
| Wimbledon finals | 4 | — |
| Career singles titles | 22 | — |
| Olympic medals | 3 | 1 |
| Career-high world ranking | 2 | — |
| WTA singles titles | — | 13 |
| WTA doubles titles | — | 24 |
| Career high ranking | — | 3 |
| Grand Slam semi-finals | — | 3 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 76 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 80 | 86 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 76 |
| Statistics w15% | 82 | 88 |
Goran Ivanišević leads with a GOAT score of 82.2 against 82.2 for Nadia Petrova — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Petrova scores higher on statistics, longevity. Ivanišević leads on peak, dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Ivanišević: 82.2, Petrova: 82.2.
Make your case for Ivanišević vs Petrova. 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.