Full Most Centuries List
-
1Virat Kohli275 innings9Most Centuries
-
2Chris Gayle141 innings6Most Centuries
-
3Jos Buttler136 innings6Most Centuries
-
4KL Rahul150 innings6Most Centuries
-
5Shubman Gill131 innings5Most Centuries
-
6Sanju Samson186 innings5Most Centuries
-
7David Warner184 innings4Most Centuries
-
8SR Watson141 innings4Most Centuries
-
9AB de Villiers170 innings3Most Centuries
-
10Quinton de Kock118 innings3Most Centuries
Who Has Scored the Most Centuries in IPL History?
Virat Kohli has scored more IPL centuries than any other batter — 9 in total, across 275 innings. Chris Gayle follows with 6, and Jos Buttler is third at 6. A century in a 20-over innings is a rare thing by design: it requires both a long stay at the crease and a strike rate high enough to reach three figures inside a maximum of 120 legal deliveries per side, which is a much narrower window than either List A or Test cricket allows.
This list tracks 63 players by career centuries, with no minimum-innings requirement — the rarity of the achievement itself acts as a natural filter.
Why hundreds are harder to reach in this format than in ODIs or Tests
An ODI innings gives a batter up to 300 deliveries to work with; a Test innings, in theory, has no ceiling at all. A T20 innings caps out at 120 legal balls per team, and realistically a batter needs to face somewhere in the region of 55 to 65 of those personally, at a strike rate well above the format average, to have any realistic chance of reaching three figures before the innings ends. That combination — enough balls faced, plus a sustained scoring rate — only comes together for a handful of players in a handful of innings each season across the entire league.
Virat Kohli's 9 centuries reflects both consistent opportunity at the top of the order and the form to convert that opportunity often enough to stand apart from every other batter to have played the format.
Why batting position dictates almost everyone on this list
Openers and number-three batters are structurally the only players with a realistic path to a century, since they're the ones most likely to face the bulk of their team's deliveries in a single innings. A finisher batting from the 15th over onward simply doesn't have enough balls left in the innings to reach three figures, no matter how destructive their strike rate is in the time they do get. That's why this list looks almost nothing like a list of the format's most dangerous finishers — it's a list of top-order batters, full stop.
What a century actually costs a batter in risk
Chasing a hundred in this format usually means taking on more risk earlier in an innings than a batter otherwise would, since there's rarely time to build slowly and still get there. Some centuries on this list came off relatively even-paced innings; others involved a batter accelerating hard in the back half once they sensed the milestone was within reach, occasionally at the cost of their side's overall run rate in that specific passage of play.
How is this ranking calculated?
Players are ranked by total centuries — innings of 100 runs or more — scored across all recorded IPL matches.
Why are centuries so much rarer in IPL than in ODI or Test cricket?
A T20 innings only allows 120 legal deliveries per team, so reaching a century requires a batter to face a large share of those balls personally, almost always from a top-order position with a sustained scoring rate.
Is there a minimum-innings qualification for this list?
No. Because centuries are already a rare, high-bar achievement, no additional cutoff is needed to keep the list meaningful.
Do finishers ever appear on this list?
Almost never. Batters coming in during the last few overs typically don't face enough deliveries left in the innings to reach three figures, regardless of their strike rate.
Does this list update during the season?
Yes, after every match, and it currently tracks 63 players.
Does a high century count mean a batter has a generally attacking style?
Not always. Some centuries on this list came from batters building an innings patiently before accelerating late, while others came from an aggressive approach sustained from the first ball — the shared factor is opportunity and conversion, not a single style of batting.