Who is better, Christiansen or Lewis?
Jack Christiansen leads with a GOAT score of 86.7 against 86.6 for Ray Lewis — 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 Jack Christiansen above Ray Lewis: 86.7 vs 86.6. Jack Christiansen leads on Dominance, Honours, Peak. Ray Lewis leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Christiansen wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours, Statistics
Lewis wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/jack-christiansen-vs-ray-lewis
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Christiansen 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Christiansen | 0 | 0 | 50 | 112 | 368 | 535 |
| 🇺🇸 Lewis | 0 | 0 | 110 | 294 | 582 | 1,232 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | ChristiansenRetired | LewisRetired |
|---|---|---|
| NFL titles | 3 | — |
| Career interceptions | 46 | — |
| Punt return touchdowns | 8 | — |
| Pro Bowls | 5 | 13 |
| All-Pro selections | 6 | — |
| Super Bowl titles | — | 2 |
| Super Bowl MVP | — | 1 |
| Defensive Player of the Year | — | 2 |
| Career tackles | — | 2,059 |
| Interceptions | — | 31 |
| Dominance w25% | 88 | 84 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 89 |
| Longevity w20% | 74 | 88 |
| Honours w20% | 90 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 87 |
Jack Christiansen leads with a GOAT score of 86.7 against 86.6 for Ray Lewis — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Lewis scores higher on longevity. Christiansen leads on peak, dominance, honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Christiansen: 86.7, Lewis: 86.6.
Make your case for Christiansen vs Lewis. 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.