H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Ivo Karlovic vs Denis Istomin H2H: 1-0
Ivo Karlovic holds a 1–0 lead over Denis Istomin in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ivo Karlovic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ivo Karlovic won the 2013 Moscow fourth round 6-3 6-7(10) 7-6(6).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CRO
Age 47
Right-Handed
211 cm / 6'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
UZB
Age 39
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 18, 2013* | Moscow | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Ivo Karlovic | 6-3 6-7(10) 7-6(6) | Denis Istomin | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ivo Karlovic | #1,066 | #14 | 2,295 | 1,998 | 357 | 333 | 51.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| Denis Istomin | #1,509 | #33 | 1,217 | 1,900 | 191 | 245 | 43.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Ivo Karlovic | Denis Istomin | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #200 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #105 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #193 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #102 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #201 | 1,454 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 29–29 | 50.0% | #40 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #73 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 10–21 | 32.3% | #73 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #61 | 1,667 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 26–29 | 47.3% | #43 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #70 | 1,739 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 30–29 | 50.8% | #45 | 1,808 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2006 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #98 | 1,632 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 24–23 | 51.1% | #49 | 1,853 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2007 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #22 | 1,940 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 20–23 | 46.5% | #61 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2008 | 29–25 | 53.7% | #26 | 1,815 | 0 | 4 | 2016 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #121 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2009 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,795 | 0 | 4 | 2017 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #63 | 1,724 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2010 | 16–9 | 64.0% | #73 | 1,864 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #92 | 1,679 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2011 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #56 | 1,819 | 0 | 4 | 2019 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #177 | 1,567 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | 2012 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #100 | 1,768 | 0 | 4 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #184 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | 2013 | 15–13 | 53.6% | #78 | 1,772 | 0 | 5 | 2021 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #254 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | 2014 | 32–27 | 54.2% | #27 | 1,853 | 0 | 5 | 2022 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #467 | 1,577 | 0 | 2 |
| 36 | 2015 | 38–25 | 60.3% | #23 | 1,916 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2016 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #20 | 1,970 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2017 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #80 | 1,770 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 2018 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #100 | 1,644 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 40 | 2019 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #95 | 1,668 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 41 | 2020 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #147 | 1,615 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 42 | 2021 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #279 | 1,623 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |