H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Nicolas Lapentti vs Denis Istomin H2H: 0-1
Denis Istomin holds a 1–0 lead over Nicolas Lapentti in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Denis Istomin leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Denis Istomin won the 2009 US Open second round 2-6 6-4 4-6 7-5 7-6(4).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ECU
Age 49
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
0
–
1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2009* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Denis Istomin | 2-6 6-4 4-6 7-5 7-6(4) | Nicolas Lapentti | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nicolas Lapentti | #885 | #6 | 2,293 | 1,935 | 282 | 280 | 50.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| 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 | Nicolas Lapentti | Denis Istomin | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1995 | 5–0 | 100.0% | #109 | 1,594 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1996 | 11–19 | 36.7% | #121 | 1,576 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #200 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1997 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #63 | 1,660 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1998 | 16–29 | 35.6% | #90 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #105 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 52–24 | 68.4% | #8 | 1,883 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #102 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 40–28 | 58.8% | #24 | 1,755 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 29–29 | 50.0% | #40 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #23 | 1,837 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 10–21 | 32.3% | #73 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 32–27 | 54.2% | #29 | 1,714 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 26–29 | 47.3% | #43 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2003 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #57 | 1,697 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 30–29 | 50.8% | #45 | 1,808 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2004 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #122 | 1,600 | 0 | 5 | 2014 | 24–23 | 51.1% | #49 | 1,853 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2005 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #95 | 1,579 | 0 | 5 | 2015 | 20–23 | 46.5% | #61 | 1,788 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2006 | 12–9 | 57.1% | #67 | 1,682 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #121 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2007 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,611 | 0 | 5 | 2017 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #63 | 1,724 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2008 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,658 | 0 | 5 | 2018 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #92 | 1,679 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2009 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #97 | 1,668 | 0 | 5 | 2019 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #177 | 1,567 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | 2010 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #447 | 1,582 | 0 | 5 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #184 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #254 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #467 | 1,577 | 0 | 2 |