Who is better, Acevedo or Henricks?
Javier Acevedo leads with a GOAT score of 79.5 against 79.2 for Jon Henricks — a gap of 0.3 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Javier Acevedo above Jon Henricks: 79.5 vs 79.2. Javier Acevedo leads on Longevity, Statistics. Jon Henricks leads on Dominance, Peak, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Acevedo wins: Longevity, Statistics
Henricks wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/javier-acevedo-vs-jon-henricks
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Acevedo 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇨🇦 Acevedo | 0 | 0 | 50 | 108 | 332 | 684 |
| 🇦🇺 Henricks | 0 | 0 | 66 | 146 | 420 | 556 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | AcevedoActive | HenricksRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Pan American medals | 2 | — |
| Olympic appearances | 2 | — |
| Canadian titles | 6 | — |
| Commonwealth Games appearances | 1 | — |
| National records set | 2 | — |
| Olympic gold medals | — | 2 |
| World records | — | 6 |
| Commonwealth Games golds | — | 3 |
| Australian titles | — | 8 |
| Olympic Games contested | — | 2 |
| Dominance w25% | 74 | 80 |
| Peak w20% | 86 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 78 | 62 |
| Honours w20% | 78 | 82 |
| Statistics w15% | 84 | 80 |
Javier Acevedo leads with a GOAT score of 79.5 against 79.2 for Jon Henricks — a gap of 0.3 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Henricks scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. Acevedo leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Acevedo: 79.5, Henricks: 79.2.
Make your case for Acevedo vs Henricks. 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.