H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 13:16 UTC
Daniel Evans vs John Isner H2H: 1-1
Daniel Evans and John Isner are tied 1–1 in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, John Isner won the 2019 Beijing fourth round 7-6(3) 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Great Britain
Age 36
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2019* | Beijing | ATP 500 | R16 | Hard | John Isner | 7-6(3) 7-5 | Daniel Evans | Match data |
| Feb 23, 2019* | Delray Beach | ATP 250 | SF | Hard | Daniel Evans | 3-6 6-2 6-3 | John Isner | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Evans | #385 | #21 | 2,195 | 1,927 | 140 | 160 | 46.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| John Isner | #660 | #8 | 3,720 | 2,053 | 467 | 293 | 61.4% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16 |
Career Progression by Age
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. GS and Titles are cumulative career totals through that season.
| Age | Daniel Evans | John Isner | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #477 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #261 | 1,441 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #363 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #342 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #297 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2013 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #150 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2014 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #305 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2016 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #66 | 1,790 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2017 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #133 | 1,820 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2019 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 2020 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #32 | 1,858 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | 2021 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #25 | 1,836 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | 2022 | 27–26 | 50.9% | #27 | 1,850 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 |
| 33 | 2023 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #38 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 |
| 34 | 2024 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #164 | 1,704 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 |
| 35 | 2025 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #185 | 1,724 | 0 | 2 | 2020 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #25 | 1,845 | 0 | 15 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 23–11 | 67.6% | #24 | 1,933 | 0 | 16 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #41 | 1,891 | 0 | 16 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #172 | 1,698 | 0 | 16 |