H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Daniel Gimeno-Traver vs Aljaz Bedene H2H: 0-1
Aljaz Bedene holds a 1–0 lead over Daniel Gimeno-Traver in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Aljaz Bedene leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Aljaz Bedene won the 2015 Hamburg third round 6-4 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.
ESP
Age 40
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
SLO
Age 37
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 2015* | Hamburg | ATP 500 | R32 | Clay | Aljaz Bedene | 6-4 6-1 | Daniel Gimeno-Traver | Match data |
| Oct 25, 2011* | Vienna | ATP 500 | Q3 | Hard | Aljaz Bedene | 6-4 7-6(4) | Daniel Gimeno-Traver | 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 Gimeno-Traver | #1,222 | #48 | 998 | 1,809 | 95 | 169 | 36.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aljaz Bedene | #1,030 | #43 | 1,169 | 1,893 | 130 | 159 | 45.0% | 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 Gimeno-Traver | Aljaz Bedene | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #180 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2006 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #267 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #165 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #90 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #86 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2009 | 9–20 | 31.0% | #72 | 1,640 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #95 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2010 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #56 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #145 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2011 | 8–23 | 25.8% | #107 | 1,644 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,775 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2012 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #70 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #101 | 1,740 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2013 | 14–27 | 34.1% | #77 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #49 | 1,816 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2014 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #112 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #67 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2015 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #98 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #58 | 1,838 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2016 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #115 | 1,684 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #58 | 1,796 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #366 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #109 | 1,773 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #189 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 | 2022 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #347 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 |