Who is better, Auerswald or Assefa?
Ingrid Auerswald leads with a GOAT score of 83.3 against 83.3 for Tigst Assefa — 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 Ingrid Auerswald and Tigst Assefa level at 83.3. Ingrid Auerswald leads on Longevity, Honours. Tigst Assefa leads on Dominance, Peak, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Auerswald wins: Longevity, Honours
Assefa wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/ingrid-auerswald-vs-tigst-assefa
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Auerswald 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇩🇪 Auerswald | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 36 |
| 🇪🇹 Assefa | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.98 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | AuerswaldRetired | AssefaActive |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic golds | 1 | — |
| Olympic medals | 3 | 1 |
| World records | 1 | — |
| European titles | 2 | — |
| 100 m personal best in seconds | 10.95 | — |
| Marathon world record | — | 2.11 |
| Berlin Marathon wins | — | 2 |
| Marathon major wins | — | 3 |
| Personal best improvement | — | 4 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 86 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 96 |
| Longevity w20% | 78 | 66 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 78 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 92 |
Ingrid Auerswald leads with a GOAT score of 83.3 against 83.3 for Tigst Assefa — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Assefa scores higher on peak, dominance, statistics. Auerswald leads on honours, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Auerswald: 83.3, Assefa: 83.3.
Make your case for Auerswald vs Assefa. 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.