Who is better, St-Pierre or Coffey?
Kim St-Pierre leads with a GOAT score of 86.8 against 86.8 for Paul Coffey — 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 St-Pierre and Paul Coffey level at 86.8. Kim St-Pierre leads on Honours, Dominance, Peak. Paul Coffey leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →St-Pierre wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Coffey wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/kim-st-pierre-vs-paul-coffey
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
St-Pierre 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇨🇦 St-Pierre | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 41 | 83 |
| 🇨🇦 Coffey | 0 | 0 | 32 | 121 | 343 | 844 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | St-PierreRetired | CoffeyRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic golds | 3 | — |
| World Championship golds | 5 | — |
| Hall of Fame inductions | 1 | — |
| Olympic shutouts | 5 | — |
| Canada caps | 100 | — |
| Stanley Cups | — | 4 |
| Norris Trophies | — | 3 |
| NHL points | — | 1,531 |
| NHL goals | — | 396 |
| All-Star selections | — | 14 |
| Points in a season | — | 138 |
| Dominance w25% | 86 | 82 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 78 | 90 |
| Honours w20% | 92 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 90 |
Kim St-Pierre leads with a GOAT score of 86.8 against 86.8 for Paul Coffey — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Coffey scores higher on statistics, longevity. St-Pierre leads on peak, dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. St-Pierre: 86.8, Coffey: 86.8.
Make your case for St-Pierre vs Coffey. 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.