H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Daniil Medvedev vs Mikhail Youzhny H2H: 0-1
Mikhail Youzhny holds a 1–0 lead over Daniil Medvedev in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mikhail Youzhny leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mikhail Youzhny won the 2017 Indian Wells Masters first round 6-4 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.
Russia
Age 30
Right-Handed
198 cm / 6'6"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2017* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R128 | Hard | Mikhail Youzhny | 6-4 6-4 | 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 |
| Mikhail Youzhny | #115 | #8 | 3,500 | 2,069 | 477 | 405 | 54.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 10 |
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 | Mikhail Youzhny | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #286 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #113 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #58 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2016 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #99 | 1,684 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #32 | 1,866 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2017 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #65 | 1,739 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #43 | 1,746 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2018 | 41–23 | 64.1% | #16 | 2,033 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 38–25 | 60.3% | #16 | 1,870 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2019 | 58–21 | 73.4% | #5 | 2,126 | 0 | 7 | 2005 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #43 | 1,758 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2020 | 24–9 | 72.7% | #4 | 2,177 | 0 | 9 | 2006 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #24 | 1,803 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2021 | 50–12 | 80.6% | #2 | 2,244 | 1 | 13 | 2007 | 48–24 | 66.7% | #19 | 1,880 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2022 | 42–18 | 70.0% | #7 | 2,064 | 1 | 15 | 2008 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #32 | 1,761 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 2023 | 67–18 | 78.8% | #3 | 2,160 | 1 | 20 | 2009 | 41–27 | 60.3% | #19 | 1,960 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2024 | 44–18 | 71.0% | #5 | 2,099 | 1 | 20 | 2010 | 40–19 | 67.8% | #10 | 1,936 | 0 | 7 |
| 29 | 2025 | 43–23 | 65.2% | #13 | 1,950 | 1 | 21 | 2011 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #35 | 1,837 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | 2026 | 31–12 | 72.1% | #8 | 1,936 | 1 | 23 | 2012 | 33–21 | 61.1% | #25 | 1,902 | 0 | 8 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #15 | 2,016 | 0 | 10 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #48 | 1,795 | 0 | 10 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 9–24 | 27.3% | #127 | 1,701 | 0 | 10 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #57 | 1,774 | 0 | 10 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #84 | 1,679 | 0 | 10 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #115 | 1,637 | 0 | 10 |