Who is better, Abdelrahman or Aouani?
Iliass Aouani leads with a GOAT score of 74.8 against 74.0 for Ihab Abdelrahman — a gap of 0.8 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Iliass Aouani above Ihab Abdelrahman: 74.8 vs 74.0. Iliass Aouani leads on Dominance, Peak, Honours. Ihab Abdelrahman leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Aouani wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours, Statistics
Abdelrahman wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/ihab-abdelrahman-vs-iliass-aouani
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Aouani 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇪🇬 Abdelrahman | 0 | 0 | 52 | 112 | 348 | 652 |
| 🇮🇹 Aouani | 0 | 0 | 50 | 108 | 246 | 678 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | AbdelrahmanRetired | AouaniActive |
|---|---|---|
| World Championship medals | 1 | — |
| Personal best (m) | 89.21 | — |
| African Championship titles | 2 | — |
| Diamond League podiums | 4 | — |
| Olympic Games contested | 2 | 1 |
| European titles | — | 1 |
| Italian records | — | 1 |
| Marathon personal best | — | 2.072 |
| Marathons completed | — | 8 |
| Dominance w25% | 68 | 70 |
| Peak w20% | 84 | 86 |
| Longevity w20% | 72 | 68 |
| Honours w20% | 72 | 74 |
| Statistics w15% | 76 | 78 |
Iliass Aouani leads with a GOAT score of 74.8 against 74.0 for Ihab Abdelrahman — a gap of 0.8 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Abdelrahman scores higher on longevity. Aouani leads on peak, dominance, honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Abdelrahman: 74.0, Aouani: 74.8.
Make your case for Abdelrahman vs Aouani. 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.