H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Karen Khachanov vs John Isner H2H: 4-0
Karen Khachanov holds a 4–0 lead over John Isner in their ATP head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Karen Khachanov leads 3–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Karen Khachanov won the 2019 Indian Wells Masters fourth round 6-4 7-6(1).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Russia
Age 30
Right-Handed
198 cm / 6'6"
H2H
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
208 cm / 6'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 14, 2019* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Hard | Karen Khachanov | 6-4 7-6(1) | John Isner | Match data |
| Nov 2, 2018* | Paris Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Hard | Karen Khachanov | 6-4 6-7(9) 7-6(8) | John Isner | Match data |
| Aug 10, 2018* | Canada Masters | Masters 1000 | R16 | Hard | Karen Khachanov | 7-6(5) 7-6(1) | John Isner | Match data |
| Jun 3, 2017* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Karen Khachanov | 7-6(1) 6-3 6-7(5) 7-6(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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karen Khachanov | #26 | #8 | 3,280 | 2,096 | 312 | 229 | 57.7% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 7 |
| 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 | Karen Khachanov | John Isner | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2013 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #451 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2014 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #372 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2016 | 13–9 | 59.1% | #53 | 1,783 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2017 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #45 | 1,797 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2018 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #11 | 2,096 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #106 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2019 | 27–26 | 50.9% | #17 | 1,909 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #144 | 1,608 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2020 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #20 | 1,864 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #34 | 1,828 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2021 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #29 | 1,877 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #19 | 1,882 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2022 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #20 | 1,975 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #18 | 2,021 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2023 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #15 | 1,959 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #14 | 1,965 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2024 | 37–22 | 62.7% | #19 | 1,938 | 0 | 7 | 2013 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,983 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2025 | 32–24 | 57.1% | #17 | 1,867 | 0 | 7 | 2014 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #19 | 1,922 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 2026 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #26 | 1,781 | 0 | 7 | 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 |