Who is better, Sharapova or Petrova?
Maria Sharapova leads with a GOAT score of 82.2 against 82.2 for Nadia Petrova — 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 Maria Sharapova and Nadia Petrova level at 82.2. Maria Sharapova leads on Honours, Dominance. Nadia Petrova leads on Statistics, Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Sharapova wins: Dominance, Honours
Petrova wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/maria-sharapova-vs-nadia-petrova
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Sharapova 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇷🇺 Sharapova | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 17 |
| 🇷🇺 Petrova | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70 | 102 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | SharapovaRetired | PetrovaRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam titles | 5 | — |
| Career Grand Slams | 1 | — |
| Career titles | 36 | — |
| Weeks at No. 1 | 21 | — |
| Olympic medals | 1 | 1 |
| Tour Finals titles | 1 | — |
| WTA singles titles | — | 13 |
| WTA doubles titles | — | 24 |
| Career high ranking | — | 3 |
| Grand Slam semi-finals | — | 3 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 76 |
| Peak w20% | 88 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 82 | 86 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 76 |
| Statistics w15% | 82 | 88 |
Maria Sharapova leads with a GOAT score of 82.2 against 82.2 for Nadia Petrova — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Petrova scores higher on statistics, longevity. Sharapova leads on dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Sharapova: 82.2, Petrova: 82.2.
Make your case for Sharapova vs Petrova. 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.