Most opening databases include that information, such as the Explorer here. Though, those include historical games so some openings may show better results than they currently get.
That said, the reasons for the wins/losses are usually not due to the opening choice.
these aren't complete statistics, but based on 100s of thousands of games, chassgames.com has an opening explorer that gives win/draw/loss percentages
Win-the-most judgments can not be justified by statistics, because players do not choose their openings randomly. For example, if a player tends to play a weak opening against weak opposition, that will push the related statistics in the direction of making the opening appear stronger.
Popularity depends on what players one is talking about. The Augist 2016 issue of Chess lists the top twenty openings compiled from a list of 2789 June games where both players were rated over 2400 Elo. One can not take position on this list too seriously because it is greatly influenced by how the openings are grouped. For example, all the Retis are grouped together, while English is separated into 1 ... c5, 1 ... e5, etc. Nevertheless, for what it is worth, some of the list entries report: 133 1 d4 Nf6 sidelines, 121 King's Indians, 101 Slavs, 98 Nimzo-Indians, 93 Caro Kanns, 92 Declined Queen's Gambits, 88 Berlin Ruy Lopezes, 79 Najdorf Sicilians, 72 1 ... c5 Englishes, 63 Kan Sicilians, 62 Queen's Indians, 50 Classical Gruenfelds, 48 Semi-Slavs, and 45 Italians. I would think that the picture would be very different at your local chess club.
Anyway, an identification of the strongest openings would not be very useful, because other factors tend to play a large role in one's opening choices. Here is one example of how a book advocated a particular opening:
"... A major selling point, which cannot be overstressed is that the Kan is one of the easiest variations of the Sicilian to learn, unlike some of the more high profile lines I could mention (the Dragon, the Najdorf and the Sveshnikov), the onus is not on the player with the black pieces to memorise reams of opening theory simply to stay on the board. Of course Black still has to play good moves, but it is much less likely to be at 'disadvantage' simply down to a memory loss. ..." - GM John Emms (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627033203/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen46.pdf
Indeed, many factors are involved in the best choice for any one player.
"Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.
For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)
Also, perhaps look at:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/picking-the-correct-opening-repertoire
http://chess-teacher.com/best-chess-openings/
https://www.chess.com/blog/TigerLilov/build-your-opening-repertoire
https://www.chess.com/blog/CraiggoryC/how-to-build-an-opening-repertoire
For someone seeking help with choosing openings, I usually bring up Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014).
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
I believe that it is possible to see a fair portion of the beginning of Tamburro's book by going to the Mongoose Press site.
https://www.mongoosepress.com/excerpts/OpeningsForAmateurs%20sample.pdf
Perhaps defenserulz would also want to look at Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006).
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
if these exist, can u link to the source?