H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Joao Sousa vs Daniel Gimeno-Traver H2H: 0-2
Daniel Gimeno-Traver holds a 2–0 lead over Joao Sousa in their ATP head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Daniel Gimeno-Traver leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Daniel Gimeno-Traver won the 2015 Moscow third round 7-6(2) 4-6 7-5.
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
–
2
2 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 40
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 22, 2015* | Moscow | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Daniel Gimeno-Traver | 7-6(2) 4-6 7-5 | Joao Sousa | Match data |
| Feb 7, 2013* | Santiago | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Daniel Gimeno-Traver | 6-4 4-6 6-1 | 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 |
| 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 | Joao Sousa | 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 | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #592 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #267 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #192 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #90 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 9–20 | 31.0% | #72 | 1,640 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2013 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #49 | 1,796 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #56 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 23–33 | 41.1% | #54 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 8–23 | 25.8% | #107 | 1,644 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2015 | 34–30 | 53.1% | #33 | 1,904 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #70 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2016 | 24–32 | 42.9% | #43 | 1,802 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 14–27 | 34.1% | #77 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #57 | 1,734 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #112 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2018 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #44 | 1,783 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #98 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2019 | 25–28 | 47.2% | #60 | 1,756 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #115 | 1,684 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2020 | 0–9 | 0.0% | #90 | 1,606 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #366 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2021 | 1–12 | 7.7% | #140 | 1,545 | 0 | 3 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #189 | 1,611 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |