H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 19:16 UTC
Dustin Brown vs Daniel Brands H2H: 1-0
Dustin Brown holds a 1–0 lead over Daniel Brands in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Dustin Brown leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Dustin Brown won the 2012 Munich third round 6-4 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.
JAM
Age 41
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
GER
Age 39
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2016 | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | Q3 | Clay | Dustin Brown | 7-6(1) 6-3 | Daniel Brands | Match data |
| May 3, 2012* | Munich | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Dustin Brown | 6-4 6-3 | Daniel Brands | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dustin Brown | #1,058 | #64 | 778 | 1,903 | 61 | 96 | 38.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daniel Brands | #1,055 | #51 | 896 | 1,886 | 57 | 92 | 38.3% | 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 | Dustin Brown | Daniel Brands | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #527 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #220 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #150 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #92 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #104 | 1,670 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #110 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #153 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #92 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #54 | 1,815 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #161 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #329 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2012 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #167 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #159 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2013 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #111 | 1,674 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #168 | 1,660 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2014 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #89 | 1,708 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #320 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2015 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #118 | 1,802 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #72 | 1,868 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #465 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2017 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #125 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2018 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #230 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #203 | 1,667 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #343 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |