Who is better, Clijsters or Gerulaitis?
Kim Clijsters leads with a GOAT score of 80.7 against 80.7 for Vitas Gerulaitis — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores Kim Clijsters and Vitas Gerulaitis level at 80.7. Kim Clijsters leads on Dominance, Honours. Vitas Gerulaitis leads on Peak, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Clijsters wins: Dominance, Honours
Gerulaitis wins: Peak, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/kim-clijsters-vs-vitas-gerulaitis
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Clijsters 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇧🇪 Clijsters | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 31 |
| 🇺🇸 Gerulaitis | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | ClijstersRetired | GerulaitisRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam titles | 4 | — |
| US Open titles | 3 | — |
| Career titles | 41 | — |
| Weeks at No. 1 | 20 | — |
| Tour Finals titles | 3 | — |
| Grand Slam doubles titles | 2 | 1 |
| Grand Slam singles titles | — | 1 |
| ATP titles | — | 25 |
| Career-high ranking | — | 3 |
| Grand Slam finals | — | 3 |
| Dominance w25% | 76 | 74 |
| Peak w20% | 87 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 80 | 80 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 78 |
| Statistics w15% | 82 | 84 |
Kim Clijsters leads with a GOAT score of 80.7 against 80.7 for Vitas Gerulaitis — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Gerulaitis scores higher on peak, statistics. Clijsters leads on dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Clijsters: 80.7, Gerulaitis: 80.7.
Make your case for Clijsters vs Gerulaitis. 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.