Is 'worse' the only comparative that has neither -er nor more?

There was a question recently about comparatives and it got me thinking about how comparatives are formed.

There are those that take -er and those that use more to indicate comparison, but is worse the only comparative in English that is intrinsically comparative? That is, it is not necessary to modify it by adding a suffix or a helper.

Why is this the case? Looking at Etymonline seems to indicate that it came into English as a comparative already, which would I think explain its irregular form, but I don't know enough about etymology to know if that is a good guess. Are there other words like this, or is worse unique?

Much/many, more, most and little/few, less/fewer, least/fewest are the positive, comparative, and superlative quantifiers in English. They come in two scales, with affirmative and negative increments.

Note that the negative scale distinguishes count (few, fewer, fewest) from mass (little, less, least) consistently, while the affirmative scale does so only in the positive degree (much, many); more and most don't distinguish mass from count - fewer people, less cheese; more people, more cheese.

It's not unique. "Less" is a valid comparative of "little."