H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 07:16 UTC
Botic van de Zandschulp vs Diego Schwartzman H2H: 1-0
Botic van de Zandschulp holds a 1–0 lead over Diego Schwartzman in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Botic van de Zandschulp leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Botic van de Zandschulp won the 2021 US Open fourth round 6-3 6-4 5-7 5-7 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.
Netherlands
Age 30
Right-Handed
191 cm / 6'3"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
Argentina
Age 33
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2021* | US Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Botic van de Zandschulp | 6-3 6-4 5-7 5-7 6-1 | Diego Schwartzman | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botic van de Zandschulp | #55 | #22 | 1,573 | 1,932 | 114 | 118 | 49.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Diego Schwartzman | #879 | #8 | 3,765 | 2,047 | 238 | 211 | 53.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
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 | Botic van de Zandschulp | Diego Schwartzman | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #117 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #61 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #88 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,780 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 38–27 | 58.5% | #26 | 1,963 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2021 | 15–10 | 60.0% | #57 | 1,856 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 30–25 | 54.5% | #17 | 1,874 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2022 | 34–28 | 54.8% | #35 | 1,835 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #14 | 1,953 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2023 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #50 | 1,793 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 24–13 | 64.9% | #9 | 2,001 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2024 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #80 | 1,779 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #13 | 1,962 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2025 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #77 | 1,714 | 0 | 0 | 2022 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2026 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #55 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 | 2023 | 13–25 | 34.2% | #114 | 1,745 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–8 | 0.0% | #370 | 1,625 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #884 | 1,632 | 0 | 4 |