H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Dominic Thiem vs John Isner H2H: 2-1
Dominic Thiem holds a 2–1 lead over John Isner in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Dominic Thiem leads 2–0 on clay, while John Isner leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Dominic Thiem won the 2021 Madrid Masters quarterfinal 3-6 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUT
Age 32
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2021* | Madrid Masters | Masters 1000 | QF | Clay | Dominic Thiem | 3-6 6-3 6-4 | John Isner | Match data |
| Oct 8, 2015* | Beijing | ATP 500 | R32 | Hard | John Isner | 7-5 6-1 | Dominic Thiem | Match data |
| May 22, 2015* | Nice | ATP 250 | SF | Clay | Dominic Thiem | 7-6(5) 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominic Thiem | #1,174 | #3 | 9,125 | 2,241 | 337 | 207 | 61.9% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 17 |
| 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 | Dominic Thiem | John Isner | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2011 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #638 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2012 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #309 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2013 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #139 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2014 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #39 | 1,848 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2015 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #20 | 1,889 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2016 | 58–24 | 70.7% | #8 | 2,015 | 0 | 7 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2017 | 47–27 | 63.5% | #5 | 1,958 | 0 | 8 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2018 | 50–21 | 70.4% | #8 | 2,064 | 0 | 11 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2019 | 48–17 | 73.8% | #4 | 2,145 | 0 | 16 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2020 | 24–7 | 77.4% | #3 | 2,200 | 1 | 17 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2021 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #15 | 2,014 | 1 | 17 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2022 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #102 | 1,907 | 1 | 17 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2023 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #98 | 1,799 | 1 | 17 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 2024 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #524 | 1,627 | 1 | 17 | 2015 | 45–23 | 66.2% | #11 | 2,026 | 0 | 10 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #19 | 2,019 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,984 | 0 | 12 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #10 | 1,956 | 0 | 14 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,921 | 0 | 15 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 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 |