H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Dominic Thiem vs Federico Delbonis H2H: 3-0
Dominic Thiem holds a 3–0 lead over Federico Delbonis in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Dominic Thiem leads 3–0 on clay. Most recently, Dominic Thiem won the 2022 Gstaad fourth round 7-6(6) 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUT
Age 32
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 35
Left-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2022* | Gstaad | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Dominic Thiem | 7-6(6) 6-3 | Federico Delbonis | Match data |
| May 9, 2018* | Madrid Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Clay | Dominic Thiem | 4-6 6-3 7-5 | Federico Delbonis | Match data |
| Jul 31, 2015* | Gstaad | ATP 250 | R16 | Clay | Dominic Thiem | 6-3 6-4 | Federico Delbonis | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominic Thiem | #1,174 | #3 | 9,125 | 2,241 | 337 | 207 | 61.9% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 17 |
| Federico Delbonis | #939 | #33 | 1,435 | 1,905 | 158 | 195 | 44.8% | 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 | Dominic Thiem | Federico Delbonis | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2011 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #638 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2012 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #309 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #195 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2013 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #139 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #39 | 1,848 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #166 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2015 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #20 | 1,889 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #133 | 1,716 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2016 | 58–24 | 70.7% | #8 | 2,015 | 0 | 7 | 2013 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #55 | 1,757 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2017 | 47–27 | 63.5% | #5 | 1,958 | 0 | 8 | 2014 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #60 | 1,660 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2018 | 50–21 | 70.4% | #8 | 2,064 | 0 | 11 | 2015 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #52 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2019 | 48–17 | 73.8% | #4 | 2,145 | 0 | 16 | 2016 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #41 | 1,754 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2020 | 24–7 | 77.4% | #3 | 2,200 | 1 | 17 | 2017 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #68 | 1,811 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2021 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #15 | 2,014 | 1 | 17 | 2018 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #80 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2022 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #102 | 1,907 | 1 | 17 | 2019 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #76 | 1,686 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2023 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #98 | 1,799 | 1 | 17 | 2020 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,705 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2024 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #524 | 1,627 | 1 | 17 | 2021 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #44 | 1,719 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #125 | 1,672 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #279 | 1,599 | 0 | 2 |