H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 13:16 UTC
Pablo Cuevas vs Daniel Brands H2H: 1-0
Pablo Cuevas holds a 1–0 lead over Daniel Brands in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Pablo Cuevas leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Pablo Cuevas won the 2010 Moscow third round 6-2 7-6(7).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
URU
Age 40
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2019 | Estoril | ATP 250 | Q1 | Clay | Pablo Cuevas | 6-1 7-6(4) | Daniel Brands | Match data |
| Oct 21, 2010* | Moscow | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Pablo Cuevas | 6-2 7-6(7) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pablo Cuevas | #841 | #19 | 1,865 | 1,960 | 211 | 212 | 49.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| 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 | Pablo Cuevas | Daniel Brands | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #220 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #150 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #113 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #92 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2008 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #142 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–19 | 32.1% | #104 | 1,670 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2009 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #50 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #110 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2010 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #153 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2011 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #142 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #54 | 1,815 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #329 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2013 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #220 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #159 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2014 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #168 | 1,660 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2015 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #40 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #320 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2016 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,818 | 0 | 5 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2017 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #32 | 1,788 | 0 | 6 | 2019 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #465 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2018 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,766 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #45 | 1,740 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #67 | 1,691 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2021 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #97 | 1,651 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2022 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #269 | 1,654 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |