Who is better, Henricks or Casas?
Shaine Casas leads with a GOAT score of 79.3 against 79.2 for Jon Henricks — 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 Shaine Casas above Jon Henricks: 79.3 vs 79.2. Shaine Casas leads on Longevity, Statistics. Jon Henricks leads on Dominance, Peak, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Casas wins: Longevity, Statistics
Henricks wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/jon-henricks-vs-shaine-casas
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Casas 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇦🇺 Henricks | 0 | 0 | 66 | 146 | 420 | 556 |
| 🇺🇸 Casas | 0 | 0 | 0 | 118.5 | 468.4 | 814.8 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HenricksRetired | CasasActive |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic gold medals | 2 | — |
| World records | 6 | — |
| Commonwealth Games golds | 3 | — |
| Australian titles | 8 | — |
| Olympic Games contested | 2 | — |
| World short-course golds | — | 3 |
| World Championship medals | — | 3 |
| NCAA titles | — | 2 |
| 200 m medley best | — | 115.3 |
| US national titles | — | 4 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 74 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 62 | 72 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 78 |
| Statistics w15% | 80 | 88 |
Shaine Casas leads with a GOAT score of 79.3 against 79.2 for Jon Henricks — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Henricks scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. Casas leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Henricks: 79.2, Casas: 79.3.
Make your case for Henricks vs Casas. 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.