H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC

John Isner vs Ernests Gulbis H2H: 3-4

Ernests Gulbis holds a 4–3 lead over John Isner in their ATP head-to-head. Across 7 main-draw meetings, John Isner leads 3–2 on hard courts, while Ernests Gulbis leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Ernests Gulbis won the 2018 Stockholm semifinal 1-6 6-3 6-3.

Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.

John Isner
USA Age 41 Right-Handed 208 cm / 6'10"
H2H
3 – 4
7 main draw meetings
Ernests Gulbis
LAT Age 37 Right-Handed 193 cm / 6'4"

H2H Match Log

DateTournamentCategoryRoundSurfaceWinnerScoreLoserMatch
Oct 20, 2018* Stockholm ATP 250 SF Hard Ernests Gulbis #145 1-6 6-3 6-3 John Isner #10 Match data
Oct 29, 2015* Basel ATP 500 R32 Hard John Isner #14 6-3 6-4 Ernests Gulbis #82 Match data
Oct 23, 2015* Vienna ATP 500 R16 Hard Ernests Gulbis #117 6-4 4-6 6-4 John Isner #13 Match data
Mar 14, 2014* Indian Wells Masters Masters 1000 QF Hard John Isner #13 7-6(4) 7-6(3) Ernests Gulbis #22 Match data
Oct 24, 2013* Valencia ATP 250 R32 Hard John Isner #14 7-6(4) 7-6(2) Ernests Gulbis #25 Match data
Apr 16, 2013* Monte Carlo Masters Masters 1000 R64 Clay Ernests Gulbis #56 4-6 6-2 6-3 John Isner #23 Match data
Jun 25, 2008* Wimbledon Grand Slam R128 Grass Ernests Gulbis #48 7-5 7-5 6-7(3) 7-6(6) John Isner #83 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
John Isner #660 #8 3,720 2,053 467 293 61.4% 0 1 0 0 15 16
Ernests Gulbis #893 #10 2,725 2,139 221 232 48.8% 0 0 0 0 6 6

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 John Isner Ernests Gulbis
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
17 — — — — — — — 2006 3–1 75.0% #141 1,556 0 0
18 — — — — — — — 2007 6–14 30.0% #61 1,638 0 0
19 — — — — — — — 2008 22–20 52.4% #53 1,815 0 0
20 — — — — — — — 2009 17–26 39.5% #90 1,696 0 0
21 — — — — — — — 2010 29–20 59.2% #24 1,845 0 1
22 2007 8–5 61.5% #106 1,656 0 0 2011 18–22 45.0% #61 1,774 0 2
23 2008 11–19 36.7% #144 1,608 0 0 2012 12–17 41.4% #136 1,727 0 2
24 2009 27–18 60.0% #34 1,828 0 0 2013 32–18 64.0% #24 1,939 0 4
25 2010 38–20 65.5% #19 1,882 0 1 2014 41–21 66.1% #13 1,917 0 6
26 2011 34–19 64.2% #18 2,021 0 3 2015 11–24 31.4% #81 1,765 0 6
27 2012 38–18 67.9% #14 1,965 0 5 2016 7–14 33.3% #151 1,785 0 6
28 2013 38–22 63.3% #14 1,983 0 7 2017 6–8 42.9% #199 1,716 0 6
29 2014 37–21 63.8% #19 1,922 0 9 2018 9–6 60.0% #95 1,813 0 6
30 2015 45–23 66.2% #11 2,026 0 10 2019 6–17 26.1% #226 1,533 0 6
31 2016 30–20 60.0% #19 2,019 0 10 2020 2–2 50.0% #181 1,562 0 6
32 2017 36–21 63.2% #17 1,984 0 12 2021 0–2 0.0% #191 1,509 0 6
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 — — — — — — —