Who is better, Chepngetich or Kipketer?
Ruth Chepngetich leads with a GOAT score of 86.2 against 86.0 for Wilson Kipketer — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Ruth Chepngetich above Wilson Kipketer: 86.2 vs 86.0. Ruth Chepngetich leads on Peak, Statistics. Wilson Kipketer leads on Dominance, Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Chepngetich wins: Peak, Statistics
Kipketer wins: Dominance, Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/ruth-chepngetich-vs-wilson-kipketer
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Chepngetich 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇰🇪 Chepngetich | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 21 |
| 🇩🇰 Kipketer | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | ChepngetichActive | KipketerRetired |
|---|---|---|
| World Championship golds | 1 | 3 |
| Marathon world record in hours | 2.09 | — |
| Chicago Marathon titles | 3 | — |
| Marathon majors won | 4 | — |
| World half marathon best in hours | 1.04 | — |
| World records | — | 1 |
| Olympic medals | — | 2 |
| 800m best (sec) | — | 100.91 |
| Sub-1:43 races | — | 30 |
| Dominance w25% | 86 | 88 |
| Peak w20% | 96 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 76 | 78 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 88 |
Ruth Chepngetich leads with a GOAT score of 86.2 against 86.0 for Wilson Kipketer — a gap of 0.2 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Kipketer scores higher on dominance, longevity. Chepngetich leads on peak, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Chepngetich: 86.2, Kipketer: 86.0.
Make your case for Chepngetich vs Kipketer. 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.