Who is better, Häkkinen or Rathmann?
Mika Häkkinen leads with a GOAT score of 79.5 against 79.1 for Jim Rathmann — a gap of 0.4 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Mika Häkkinen above Jim Rathmann: 79.5 vs 79.1. Mika Häkkinen leads on Dominance, Honours. Jim Rathmann leads on Peak, Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Häkkinen wins: Dominance, Honours
Rathmann wins: Peak, Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/hakkinen-vs-jim-rathmann
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Häkkinen leads in 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇫🇮 Häkkinen | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| 🇺🇸 Rathmann | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 14 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HäkkinenRetired | RathmannRetired |
|---|---|---|
| World titles | 2 | — |
| Grand Prix wins | 20 | — |
| Pole positions | 26 | — |
| Podiums | 51 | — |
| Race starts | 161 | — |
| Fastest laps | 25 | — |
| Indianapolis 500 wins | — | 1 |
| Indianapolis 500 runner-up finishes | — | 3 |
| Indy 500 starts | — | 14 |
| Career championship points | — | 30 |
| Career span in years | — | 15 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 72 |
| Peak w20% | 86 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 76 | 80 |
| Honours w20% | 78 | 72 |
| Statistics w15% | 80 | 82 |
Mika Häkkinen leads with a GOAT score of 79.5 against 79.1 for Jim Rathmann — a gap of 0.4 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Rathmann scores higher on peak, statistics, longevity. Häkkinen leads on dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Häkkinen: 79.5, Rathmann: 79.1.
Make your case for Häkkinen vs Rathmann. 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.