H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Daniel Evans vs Pablo Cuevas H2H: 0-1
Pablo Cuevas holds a 1–0 lead over Daniel Evans in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Pablo Cuevas leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Pablo Cuevas won the 2016 Nottingham fourth round 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-4.
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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
URU
Age 40
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2016* | Nottingham | ATP 250 | R16 | Grass | Pablo Cuevas | 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-4 | 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 |
| Pablo Cuevas | #841 | #19 | 1,865 | 1,960 | 211 | 212 | 49.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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 | Pablo Cuevas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #261 | 1,441 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #363 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #342 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #113 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #297 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #142 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2013 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #150 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #50 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2014 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #305 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #142 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2016 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #66 | 1,790 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2017 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #133 | 1,820 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #220 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,787 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2019 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #40 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2020 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #32 | 1,858 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,818 | 0 | 5 |
| 31 | 2021 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #25 | 1,836 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #32 | 1,788 | 0 | 6 |
| 32 | 2022 | 27–26 | 50.9% | #27 | 1,850 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,766 | 0 | 6 |
| 33 | 2023 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #38 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #45 | 1,740 | 0 | 6 |
| 34 | 2024 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #164 | 1,704 | 0 | 2 | 2020 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #67 | 1,691 | 0 | 6 |
| 35 | 2025 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #185 | 1,724 | 0 | 2 | 2021 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #97 | 1,651 | 0 | 6 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #269 | 1,654 | 0 | 6 |