H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Naomi Osaka vs Johanna Larsson H2H: 1-0
Naomi Osaka holds a 1–0 lead over Johanna Larsson in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Naomi Osaka leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Naomi Osaka won the 2017 Charleston second round 6-7(4) 6-4 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.
JPN
Age 28
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 37
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2017* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Naomi Osaka | 6-7(4) 6-4 6-2 | Johanna Larsson | Match data |
| Aug 19, 2016 | New Haven | WTA 500 | Q1 | Hard | Johanna Larsson | 6-2 2-2 | Naomi Osaka | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naomi Osaka | #13 | #1 | 7,985 | 2,140 | 240 | 130 | 64.9% | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Johanna Larsson | #236 | #45 | 1,230 | 1,745 | 153 | 177 | 46.4% | 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 | Naomi Osaka | Johanna Larsson | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2014 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #260 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #144 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #389 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2016 | 20–13 | 60.6% | #48 | 1,700 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2017 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #68 | 1,697 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #177 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2018 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #5 | 1,904 | 1 | 2 | 2009 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #172 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2019 | 40–13 | 75.5% | #3 | 2,030 | 2 | 5 | 2010 | 9–9 | 50.0% | #69 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2020 | 16–3 | 84.2% | #3 | 2,082 | 3 | 6 | 2011 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #59 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2021 | 18–7 | 72.0% | #13 | 2,002 | 4 | 7 | 2012 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #73 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2022 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #42 | 1,894 | 4 | 7 | 2013 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #84 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #70 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2024 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #57 | 1,883 | 4 | 7 | 2015 | 25–19 | 56.8% | #56 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2025 | 31–14 | 68.9% | #16 | 1,968 | 4 | 8 | 2016 | 29–24 | 54.7% | #50 | 1,716 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2026 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #13 | 2,044 | 4 | 8 | 2017 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #80 | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #75 | 1,600 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 3–13 | 18.8% | #217 | 1,557 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #236 | 1,543 | 0 | 2 |