Who is better, Arnarson or Apple?
Zach Apple leads with a GOAT score of 74.1 against 74.0 for Örn Arnarson — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Zach Apple above Örn Arnarson: 74.1 vs 74.0. Zach Apple leads on Statistics, Peak, Dominance. Örn Arnarson leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Apple wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours, Statistics
Arnarson wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/orn-arnarson-vs-zach-apple
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Apple leads in 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇮🇸 Arnarson | 0 | 0 | 50 | 112 | 366 | 708 |
| 🇺🇸 Apple | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 30 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | ArnarsonRetired | AppleRetired |
|---|---|---|
| European short course titles | 2 | — |
| European long course medals | 1 | — |
| Icelandic records | 20 | — |
| Olympic Games contested | 3 | — |
| Years at the top level | 12 | — |
| Olympic golds | — | 2 |
| World Championship golds | — | 3 |
| Olympic Games appearances | — | 1 |
| World Championship medals | — | 5 |
| Relay world records | — | 1 |
| Dominance w25% | 66 | 68 |
| Peak w20% | 82 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 78 | 62 |
| Honours w20% | 72 | 74 |
| Statistics w15% | 74 | 82 |
Zach Apple leads with a GOAT score of 74.1 against 74.0 for Örn Arnarson — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Arnarson scores higher on longevity. Apple leads on peak, dominance, honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Arnarson: 74.0, Apple: 74.1.
Make your case for Arnarson vs Apple. 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.