H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Emil Ruusuvuori vs Joao Sousa H2H: 1-1
Emil Ruusuvuori and Joao Sousa 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, Emil Ruusuvuori won the 2022 Stockholm third round 6-3 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Finland
Age 27
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
POR
Age 37
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 20, 2022* | Stockholm | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Emil Ruusuvuori | 6-3 6-2 | Joao Sousa | Match data |
| Feb 6, 2022* | Pune | ATP 250 | F | Hard | Joao Sousa | 7-6(9) 4-6 6-1 | Emil Ruusuvuori | Match data |
| Jun 8, 2021* | Stuttgart | ATP 250 | Q1 | Grass | Emil Ruusuvuori | 7-5 6-3 | Joao Sousa | Match data |
| Oct 19, 2020 | Antwerp | ATP 250 | Q2 | Hard | Emil Ruusuvuori | 1-1 (ret.) | Joao Sousa | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emil Ruusuvuori | #545 | #37 | 1,041 | 1,886 | 97 | 98 | 49.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Joao Sousa | #954 | #28 | 1,355 | 1,917 | 189 | 247 | 43.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Emil Ruusuvuori | Joao Sousa | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #592 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2020 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #86 | 1,696 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2021 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,772 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #192 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2022 | 32–28 | 53.3% | #40 | 1,784 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2023 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #69 | 1,765 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #49 | 1,796 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2024 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #95 | 1,774 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 23–33 | 41.1% | #54 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #549 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 34–30 | 53.1% | #33 | 1,904 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 24–32 | 42.9% | #43 | 1,802 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #57 | 1,734 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #44 | 1,783 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 25–28 | 47.2% | #60 | 1,756 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 0–9 | 0.0% | #90 | 1,606 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #140 | 1,545 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #82 | 1,565 | 0 | 4 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #249 | 1,509 | 0 | 4 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #726 | 1,503 | 0 | 4 |