The UCI World Ranking has been the official benchmark in cycling for decades. But for those who look closely, its flaws are evident: accumulating points often becomes more important than actual performance. This results in a ranking that does not always accurately reflect the power dynamics within the peloton. The Cyclingflash Ranking takes a different approach. We look not only at what you win, but especially against whom you do it. This provides surprising insights and a picture that is much closer to reality.
The UCI system primarily rewards clever scheduling. Teams deliberately send riders to smaller races where relatively more points can be earned. The strength of the competitor field hardly plays any role. As a result, riders with clever team managers and packed race calendars often rank higher than better riders with less-favorable planning.
The Cyclingflash Ranking focuses on true performance: who do you beat? And how strong were your opponents? A tenth place in a WorldTour sprint full of top riders can be worth more than a victory in a weakly contested UCI 1.1 race. Smart scheduling doesn’t help; only strong riding counts in the Cyclingflash Ranking.
In the UCI ranking, certain riders fall between the cracks:
Sprinters: stage wins in stage races yield few points, although these are often the toughest battles.
Time trialists: get only a few chances per year to score points.
Classics specialists: are penalized because they contribute little in stage races.
The Cyclingflash Rankings solve this by giving each specialty its own podium. A pure sprinter can even place high in the Overall Ranking, as long as he is dominant enough in his discipline and does not completely fall behind in other areas.
Another major difference is the time horizon.
UCI: looks back one year. Those who excelled in the spring still rank high in December, even after months of poor form.
Cyclingflash: is updated daily and shows who is strong now. If you perform poorly, your rating drops. If you get in form, you climb quickly.
In addition, we also have 365 Rankings that look back 365 days, but weighted according to the quality of performances.
Example 1: A rider wins three small one-day races against weak competition.
UCI: lots of points, high ranking.
Cyclingflash: limited increase, because the opposition was weak.
Example 2: A sprinter finishes third multiple times in sprints full of top riders in a small stage race.
UCI: few points, low ranking.
Cyclingflash: high rating due to consistent performance against strong competition.
The UCI ranking mainly rewards smart planning and point gathering. The Cyclingflash Ranking rewards performance against strong competition. According to us, this creates a much fairer picture of who really are the best riders in the world, for both men and women.
Compare the UCI World Ranking with our Cyclingflash Rankings yourself now and discover how different the world’s top looks.
| Rank | Rider | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Tadej Pogačar | 977 |
| 2 |  Remco Evenepoel | 922 |
| 3 |  Jonas Vingegaard | 906 |
| 4 |  João Almeida | 881 |
| 5 |  Isaac Del Toro Romero | 878 |
| Rank | Rider | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Lorena Wiebes | 955 |
| 2 | Lotte Kopecky | 925 |
| 3 |  Marlen Reusser | 900 |
| 4 | Marianne Vos | 900 |
| 5 | Anna van der Breggen | 895 |
