Who is better, Vacenovská or Wang Hao?
Iveta Vacenovská leads with a GOAT score of 76.8 against 76.7 for Wang Hao — 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 Iveta Vacenovská above Wang Hao: 76.8 vs 76.7. Iveta Vacenovská leads on Longevity, Statistics. Wang Hao leads on Dominance, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Vacenovská wins: Longevity, Statistics
Wang Hao wins: Dominance, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/iveta-vacenovska-tt-vs-wang-hao
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Vacenovská leads in 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇨🇿 Vacenovská | 0 | 0 | 44 | 92 | 198 | 527 |
| 🇨🇳 Wang Hao | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | VacenovskáRetired | Wang HaoRetired |
|---|---|---|
| European Championship medals | 2 | — |
| Olympic appearances | 3 | — |
| ITTF World Tour medals | 3 | — |
| Career world ranking best | 14 | — |
| National titles | 10 | — |
| World Championship singles titles | — | 1 |
| World Cup titles | — | 3 |
| Olympic medals | — | 4 |
| World team titles | — | 6 |
| Months at No. 1 | — | 30 |
| ITTF Tour titles | — | 18 |
| Dominance w25% | 70 | 74 |
| Peak w20% | 80 | 80 |
| Longevity w20% | 84 | 76 |
| Honours w20% | 74 | 78 |
| Statistics w15% | 78 | 76 |
Iveta Vacenovská leads with a GOAT score of 76.8 against 76.7 for Wang Hao — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Wang Hao scores higher on dominance, honours. Vacenovská leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Vacenovská: 76.8, Wang Hao: 76.7.
Make your case for Vacenovská vs Wang Hao. 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.