H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 01:16 UTC
Joao Sousa vs Aljaz Bedene H2H: 0-3
Aljaz Bedene holds a 3–0 lead over Joao Sousa in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Aljaz Bedene leads 2–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Aljaz Bedene won the 2018 Umag third round 7-6(5) 4-6 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.
POR
Age 37
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
0
–
3
3 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 19, 2018* | Umag | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Aljaz Bedene | 7-6(5) 4-6 6-4 | Joao Sousa | Match data |
| Jul 20, 2017* | Umag | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Aljaz Bedene | 6-3 4-6 6-4 | Joao Sousa | Match data |
| Jan 3, 2013* | Chennai | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Aljaz Bedene | 6-3 6-2 | Joao Sousa | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joao Sousa | #954 | #28 | 1,355 | 1,917 | 189 | 247 | 43.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 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 | Joao Sousa | Aljaz Bedene | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #592 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #165 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #192 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #86 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #95 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2013 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #49 | 1,796 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #145 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 23–33 | 41.1% | #54 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #45 | 1,775 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2015 | 34–30 | 53.1% | #33 | 1,904 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #101 | 1,740 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2016 | 24–32 | 42.9% | #43 | 1,802 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #49 | 1,816 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #57 | 1,734 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #67 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2018 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #44 | 1,783 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #58 | 1,838 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2019 | 25–28 | 47.2% | #60 | 1,756 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #58 | 1,796 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2020 | 0–9 | 0.0% | #90 | 1,606 | 0 | 3 | 2021 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #109 | 1,773 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2021 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #140 | 1,545 | 0 | 3 | 2022 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #347 | 1,658 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | 2022 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #82 | 1,565 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2023 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #249 | 1,509 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2024 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #726 | 1,503 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |