Who is better, De Cecco or Ognjenović?
Luciano De Cecco leads with a GOAT score of 88.4 against 88.4 for Maja Ognjenović — 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 Luciano De Cecco and Maja Ognjenović level at 88.4. Luciano De Cecco leads on Statistics, Longevity. Maja Ognjenović leads on Honours, Dominance.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →De Cecco wins: Longevity, Statistics
Ognjenović wins: Dominance, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/luciano-de-cecco-vs-maja-ognjenovic
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
De Cecco 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇦🇷 De Cecco | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 59 |
| 🇷🇸 Ognjenović | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 18 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | De CeccoActive | OgnjenovićActive |
|---|---|---|
| Olympic medals | 1 | — |
| Olympic Games | 4 | — |
| Italian league titles | 3 | — |
| Champions League medals | 2 | — |
| Best setter awards | 6 | — |
| World Championship golds | — | 2 |
| European titles | — | 3 |
| Olympic silver medals | — | 1 |
| Olympic bronze medals | — | 1 |
| Serbia caps | — | 400 |
| Dominance w25% | 84 | 86 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 92 | 90 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 88 |
| Statistics w15% | 92 | 86 |
Luciano De Cecco leads with a GOAT score of 88.4 against 88.4 for Maja Ognjenović — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Ognjenović scores higher on dominance, honours. De Cecco leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. De Cecco: 88.4, Ognjenović: 88.4.
Make your case for De Cecco vs Ognjenović. 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.