ColossiansOne

Side by side, from the sources

Izanagi vs Izanami

These two are set against one another in the texts, which is itself a claim worth attributing. Not an enmity at the outset: they make the islands together, and the opposition begins when he looks at her in Yomi and flees. The text ends with a thousand deaths a day against fifteen hundred births.

Deity · Japanese · c. 100 BCE

Izanagi

also called Izanagi-no-Mikoto

The Japanese god who stirs the sea into land with a spear, goes into Yomi after his wife and looks at her against her word, and washes afterwards — producing Amaterasu and Susanoo from the washing.

Alignment
Disputed
Rank
He Who Invites
First attested
Kojiki (Records of Ancient Matters) · 712 CE
Named there as
Izanagi no Mikoto
Texts naming it
5
Powers attributed
3

Deity · Japanese · c. 100 BCE

Izanami

also called Izanami-no-Mikoto

The Japanese goddess who makes the islands with her husband, dies giving birth to fire, and becomes the ruler of Yomi — where she promises to kill a thousand people a day for the insult of being seen.

Alignment
Disputed
Rank
She Who Invites
First attested
Kojiki (Records of Ancient Matters) · 712 CE
Named there as
Izanami no Mikoto
Texts naming it
5
Powers attributed
4

Where do they actually overlap?

Common questions

Are Izanagi and Izanami the same figure?

These two are set against one another in the texts, which is itself a claim worth attributing. Not an enmity at the outset: they make the islands together, and the opposition begins when he looks at her in Yomi and flees. The text ends with a thousand deaths a day against fifteen hundred births. ColossiansOne records the link rather than asserting the identity: where texts disagree about whether two names denote one figure, the disagreement is what gets shown.

Which is older, Izanagi or Izanami?

Both are first attested in the same period, around c. 100 BCE.

Do any texts name both Izanagi and Izanami?

Yes — 5 texts name both. A single text naming both figures is the strongest evidence available here that its author treated them as distinct, whatever later writers did with the pair.