Who is better, Grings or Angerer?
Inka Grings leads with a GOAT score of 89.5 against 89.4 for Nadine Angerer — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Inka Grings above Nadine Angerer: 89.5 vs 89.4. Inka Grings leads on Statistics, Dominance. Nadine Angerer leads on Longevity, Honours, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Grings wins: Dominance, Statistics
Angerer wins: Peak, Longevity, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/inka-grings-v-vs-nadine-angerer
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Grings 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇩🇪 Grings | 0 | 0 | 55 | 115 | 248 | 659 |
| 🇩🇪 Angerer | 0 | 0 | 45 | 94 | 204 | 549 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | GringsRetired | AngererRetired |
|---|---|---|
| European Championship titles | 2 | 6 |
| Euro Golden Boot awards | 2 | — |
| Bundesliga goals | 305 | — |
| Bundesliga top scorer awards | 8 | — |
| Germany goals | 64 | — |
| World Cup titles | — | 2 |
| FIFA World Player awards | — | 1 |
| Germany caps | — | 146 |
| World Cup minutes without conceding | — | 540 |
| Dominance w25% | 88 | 84 |
| Peak w20% | 93 | 94 |
| Longevity w20% | 86 | 90 |
| Honours w20% | 88 | 92 |
| Statistics w15% | 94 | 88 |
Inka Grings leads with a GOAT score of 89.5 against 89.4 for Nadine Angerer — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Angerer scores higher on peak, honours, longevity. Grings leads on dominance, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Grings: 89.5, Angerer: 89.4.
Make your case for Grings vs Angerer. 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.