Who is better, Kirkaldy or Åberg?
Hugh Kirkaldy leads with a GOAT score of 69.7 against 57.6 for Ludvig Åberg — a gap of 12.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Hugh Kirkaldy above Ludvig Åberg: 69.7 vs 57.6. Hugh Kirkaldy leads on Peak, Longevity, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Kirkaldy wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours, Statistics
Åberg wins: no category outright
Shareable URL · /compare/hugh-kirkaldy-vs-ludvig-aberg
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Kirkaldy leads in 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇬🇧 Kirkaldy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 🇸🇪 Åberg | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 8 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | KirkaldyRetired | ÅbergActive |
|---|---|---|
| Open Championship titles | 1 | — |
| Open top-fives | 3 | — |
| Career span in years | 10 | — |
| Open starts | 8 | — |
| Professional wins | 2 | — |
| PGA Tour wins | — | 2 |
| DP World Tour wins | — | 1 |
| Ryder Cup appearances | — | 1 |
| Major runner-up finishes | — | 1 |
| Best world ranking | — | 4 |
| PGA Tour top-10 finishes | — | 25 |
| Dominance w25% | 62 | 58 |
| Peak w20% | 88 | 68 |
| Longevity w20% | 60 | 42 |
| Honours w20% | 66 | 56 |
| Statistics w15% | 76 | 66 |
Hugh Kirkaldy leads with a GOAT score of 69.7 against 57.6 for Ludvig Åberg — a gap of 12.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Åberg does not lead any of the five categories; Kirkaldy is ahead or level on all of them.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Kirkaldy: 69.7, Åberg: 57.6.
Make your case for Kirkaldy vs Åberg. 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.