H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Daniil Medvedev vs Daniel Gimeno-Traver H2H: 0-1
Daniel Gimeno-Traver holds a 1–0 lead over Daniil Medvedev in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Daniel Gimeno-Traver leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Daniel Gimeno-Traver won the 2016 Hamburg fourth round 5-7 7-6(4) 7-6(2).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Russia
Age 30
Right-Handed
198 cm / 6'6"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 40
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 15, 2016* | Hamburg | ATP 500 | R16 | Clay | Daniel Gimeno-Traver | 5-7 7-6(4) 7-6(2) | Daniil Medvedev | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniil Medvedev | #8 | #1 | 10,780 | 2,285 | 427 | 182 | 70.1% | 1 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 23 |
| Daniel Gimeno-Traver | #1,222 | #48 | 998 | 1,809 | 95 | 169 | 36.0% | 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 | Daniil Medvedev | Daniel Gimeno-Traver | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2016 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #99 | 1,684 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #267 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2017 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #65 | 1,739 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2018 | 41–23 | 64.1% | #16 | 2,033 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #90 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2019 | 58–21 | 73.4% | #5 | 2,126 | 0 | 7 | 2009 | 9–20 | 31.0% | #72 | 1,640 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2020 | 24–9 | 72.7% | #4 | 2,177 | 0 | 9 | 2010 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #56 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2021 | 50–12 | 80.6% | #2 | 2,244 | 1 | 13 | 2011 | 8–23 | 25.8% | #107 | 1,644 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2022 | 42–18 | 70.0% | #7 | 2,064 | 1 | 15 | 2012 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #70 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2023 | 67–18 | 78.8% | #3 | 2,160 | 1 | 20 | 2013 | 14–27 | 34.1% | #77 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2024 | 44–18 | 71.0% | #5 | 2,099 | 1 | 20 | 2014 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #112 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2025 | 43–23 | 65.2% | #13 | 1,950 | 1 | 21 | 2015 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #98 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2026 | 31–12 | 72.1% | #8 | 1,936 | 1 | 23 | 2016 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #115 | 1,684 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #366 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #189 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |