Who is better, Carrillo or Pavan?
Nancy Carrillo leads with a GOAT score of 81.9 against 81.9 for Sarah Pavan — 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 Nancy Carrillo and Sarah Pavan level at 81.9. Nancy Carrillo leads on Statistics, Longevity. Sarah Pavan leads on Honours, Dominance, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Carrillo wins: Longevity, Statistics
Pavan wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/nancy-carrillo-vs-sarah-pavan
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Carrillo 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇨🇺 Carrillo | 0 | 0 | 50 | 105 | 230 | 635 |
| 🇨🇦 Pavan | 0 | 0 | 52 | 114 | 350 | 714 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | CarrilloRetired | PavanActive |
|---|---|---|
| Pan American medals | 2 | — |
| NORCECA titles | 3 | — |
| Olympic appearances | 2 | — |
| World Championship appearances | 3 | — |
| National team years | 15 | — |
| World Championship titles | — | 1 |
| Commonwealth Games golds | — | 1 |
| World Tour wins | — | 12 |
| Olympic Games contested | — | 3 |
| Years at the top level | — | 16 |
| Dominance w25% | 76 | 78 |
| Peak w20% | 86 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 86 | 82 |
| Honours w20% | 78 | 82 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 80 |
Nancy Carrillo leads with a GOAT score of 81.9 against 81.9 for Sarah Pavan — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Pavan scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. Carrillo leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Carrillo: 81.9, Pavan: 81.9.
Make your case for Carrillo vs Pavan. 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.