Head-to-head / all-time score

EpicaversusThe Used

Put both careers on the same scorecard, inspect the biggest category gaps and change what counts before you make the call.

Challenge the score

Tune the live scorecard, then share the exact scoring and result from the verdict panel.

EpicaClassification under review

All-Time reference

The Used

The live shared verdict is below.

The UsedClassification under review

Epica

Classification under review

Scoring result73.1

Wins 2 of 6 active categories · 3 level

Current margin

0.4

The Used leads this version.

Current leader

The Used

Classification under review

Scoring result73.5

Wins 1 of 6 active categories · 3 level

The verdict

The Used wins this scorecard.

The edge is 0.4 points in All-Time Ranking. Epica still has category wins worth arguing below.

The strongest weighted drivers for The Used are Influence (4.0 raw gap at 20% weight). 2 zero-weight context lenses are outside this verdict.

All-time list

MGI model 3.3.0July 2026 · MGI v3.3 archive6 factors counted2 context lenses

Commercial, Live are outside this verdict. Unavailable values stay N/A and are never treated as zero.

The current leader at a Influence weight of 20.0% is The Used. Changing Influence from 20.0% to 12.2% flips the lead to Epica; all other unlocked weights are rebalanced proportionally to keep the total at 100%.

Verdict logicWhy this verdict: The UsedAll-time list: Public attention, Current, Influence · 0.4 pts from Epica

All-time listNot counted here: Commercial + LiveUnavailable: Commercial + Live

The Used lands here because Public attention, Current and Influence do most of the work in this view. Commercial and Live are unavailable until reviewed evidence exists and cannot change this verdict.

The Used sits 0.4 points from Epica in this scorecard; the next move would most likely come through Catalog and Longevity. Commercial and Live remain unavailable until reviewed evidence exists; this verdict is not recalculated with hidden replacement values.

What helps

Public attention25.1% of this score

Public attention score92.0

Provisional evidenceDerived evidence · 1/5 fieldsModel confidence highWeight 20

Provisional score retained from the published edition. Supporting narrative is withheld while classification and source context are reviewed.

Current18.8% of this score

Current score92.0

Provisional evidenceDerived evidence · 1/6 fieldsModel confidence highWeight 15

Provisional score retained from the published edition. Supporting narrative is withheld while classification and source context are reviewed.

Influence18.8% of this score

Influence score69.0

Provisional evidenceEditorial judgment · 1/5 fieldsModel confidence highWeight 20

Provisional score retained from the published edition. Supporting narrative is withheld while classification and source context are reviewed.

What could move it

Catalog and Longevity are the softest scoring factors; movement there matters most near Epica.

More checking on Public attention, Influence and Current would improve confidence before it changes the public score.

Commercial and Live remain unavailable until reviewed observation records pass; no alternate rank is published.

What decided it

The strongest weighted gaps

Influence+0.8 pts

4.0 raw gap × 20% weight · edge to The Used

Peak+0.3 pts

2.0 raw gap × 15% weight · edge to Epica

Current+0.1 pts

1.0 raw gap × 15% weight · edge to Epica

Active score parts

What decides this verdict

2-1 · 3 level

InfluenceCurated cultural and peer influence tier.

Epica65.0

The Used69.0

PeakHow dominant the strongest era felt relative to peers.

Epica72.0

The Used70.0

CurrentShort-window current-interest context derived from a dated Wikimedia Pageviews observation; it is not listening, sales or artistic quality.

Epica93.0

The Used92.0

CatalogDepth, spread and durability of the catalog.Level

Epica52.0

The Used52.0

LongevityActive years, persistence and legacy after the first peak.Level

Epica61.0

The Used61.0

Public attentionLong-horizon editorial cultural-footprint judgment. The frozen v3.3 compatibility score historically used a retired short-window Wikimedia Pageviews proxy; it remains provisional until replaced in a reviewed edition.Level

Epica92.0

The Used92.0

Context only · zero weight

Useful context, outside this verdict

These gaps are visible for the debate, but they do not count until you raise their sliders or choose another view.

CommercialCommercial tier, sales evidence, certifications and scale.Not comparable

EpicaN/A

The UsedN/A

LiveLive/touring reputation and durable concert draw.Not comparable

EpicaN/A

The UsedN/A

Change the rules

All-Time

Active edge

The Used

Margin

0.4 pts

Commercial and live controls stay disabled until both artists have reviewed, observation-based evidence. Missing evidence never becomes a zero score.

Fine tune

Score parts

Total100%

Move one score part and the unlocked remainder will rebalance to 100%.

01CommercialCommercial tier, sales evidence, certifications and scale.Unavailable · Unavailable until every selected artist has a reviewed, observation-based estimate record.

02Public attentionLong-horizon editorial cultural-footprint judgment. The frozen v3.3 compatibility score historically used a retired short-window Wikimedia Pageviews proxy; it remains provisional until replaced in a reviewed edition.

03InfluenceCurated cultural and peer influence tier.

04LiveLive/touring reputation and durable concert draw.Unavailable · Unavailable until every selected artist has a reviewed, observation-based estimate record.

05LongevityActive years, persistence and legacy after the first peak.

06CatalogDepth, spread and durability of the catalog.

07CurrentShort-window current-interest context derived from a dated Wikimedia Pageviews observation; it is not listening, sales or artistic quality.

08PeakHow dominant the strongest era felt relative to peers.

Preparing the scorecard

Epica vs The Used

Checking the shared formula before publishing the interactive verdict.

Keep exploring

Keep the argument going

Debate game

Play GOAT Arena

Pick winners across five high-signal debates and unlock a shareable debate identity.

Your picks

Build a GOAT DNA Squad

Pick a 3-8 artist squad and turn taste into a shareable greatness fingerprint.

Broader context

Greatest Artists of All Time

Open the full table and see where every artist lands in Main Ranking.

Custom scoring

Build Your Own Ranking

Move the weights and watch the ranking, biggest movers and head-to-head verdicts change instantly.

How it works

How the GOAT Score Works

See the scoring method, metric weights and labels behind the ranking.

Data policy

Data Sources & Guardrails

Check which source types feed Main Ranking, Sales & Touring and review gates.

Artist profile

Epica

Open the ranking score and evidence status for this artist.

Artist profile

The Used

Open the ranking score and evidence status for this artist.

FAQ

Epica vs The Used questions

Who has the Main Ranking edge in Epica vs The Used?

The Music GOAT Index Main Ranking gives The Used the edge, but the sliders let you test other assumptions.

Can the result change?

Yes. Compare pages include scoring sliders and crossover insights so a different weighting can change the verdict.

Is the comparison an official ranking?

No. It is an independent entertainment ranking designed for transparent music debate.

For brands

Sponsor music arguments fans already share.

Run a clearly labeled campaign around rankings, head-to-head debates or shareable results without interrupting the fan experience.

See sponsor options