H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Daniel Evans vs Kyle Edmund H2H: 1-2
Kyle Edmund holds a 2–1 lead over Daniel Evans in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Kyle Edmund leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Daniel Evans won the 2022 Washington third round 6-1 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.
Great Britain
Age 36
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
Great Britain
Age 31
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2022* | Washington | ATP 500 | R32 | Hard | Daniel Evans | 6-1 6-2 | Kyle Edmund | Match data |
| Jun 28, 2019* | Eastbourne | ATP 250 | QF | Grass | Kyle Edmund | 1-6 6-3 6-4 | Daniel Evans | Match data |
| Apr 18, 2017* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Clay | Kyle Edmund | 7-5 6-1 | Daniel Evans | 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 Evans | #385 | #21 | 2,195 | 1,927 | 140 | 160 | 46.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Kyle Edmund | #703 | #14 | 2,330 | 2,002 | 113 | 120 | 48.5% | 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 | Daniel Evans | Kyle Edmund | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #477 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #376 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #261 | 1,441 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #194 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #363 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #102 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #342 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #45 | 1,891 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #297 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #50 | 1,877 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2013 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #150 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #14 | 1,958 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2014 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #305 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 14–22 | 38.9% | #69 | 1,772 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #48 | 1,765 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2016 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #66 | 1,790 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2017 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #133 | 1,820 | 0 | 0 | 2022 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #581 | 1,736 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 | 2023 | 0–7 | 0.0% | #538 | 1,654 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2019 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2020 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #32 | 1,858 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2021 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #25 | 1,836 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2022 | 27–26 | 50.9% | #27 | 1,850 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2023 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #38 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2024 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #164 | 1,704 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2025 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #185 | 1,724 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |