H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Daniel Brands vs Kevin Kim H2H: 0-2
Kevin Kim holds a 2–0 lead over Daniel Brands in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kevin Kim leads 1–0 on grass and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kevin Kim won the 2010 Chennai third round 6-2 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.
GER
Age 39
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 47
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2010* | Chennai | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Kevin Kim | 6-2 6-2 | Daniel Brands | Match data |
| Jul 10, 2009* | Newport | ATP 250 | R16 | Grass | Kevin Kim | 4-6 7-6(5) 6-4 | Daniel Brands | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Brands | #1,055 | #51 | 896 | 1,886 | 57 | 92 | 38.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kevin Kim | #1,213 | #63 | 866 | 1,641 | 44 | 97 | 31.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Daniel Brands | Kevin Kim | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1300 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #220 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2008 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #150 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #195 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #92 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #141 | 1,425 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #104 | 1,670 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #184 | 1,392 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #110 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #238 | 1,430 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2012 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #153 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #219 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #54 | 1,815 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #94 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2014 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #329 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 19–25 | 43.2% | #101 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2015 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #159 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #101 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2016 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #168 | 1,660 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 3–14 | 17.6% | #178 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2017 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #320 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #117 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #117 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2019 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #465 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #245 | 1,581 | 0 | 0 |