H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 07:16 UTC
Pablo Cuevas vs Daniel Gimeno-Traver H2H: 1-0
Pablo Cuevas holds a 1–0 lead over Daniel Gimeno-Traver in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Pablo Cuevas leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Pablo Cuevas won the 2016 Monte Carlo Masters second round 7-6(2) 6-7(2) 7-6(4).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
URU
Age 40
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 40
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2016* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Clay | Pablo Cuevas | 7-6(2) 6-7(2) 7-6(4) | Daniel Gimeno-Traver | Match data |
| Jul 19, 2009 | Hamburg | ATP 500 | Q2 | Clay | Pablo Cuevas | 6-2 7-6(3) | Daniel Gimeno-Traver | 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 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 | Pablo Cuevas | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #192 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #267 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #113 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2008 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #142 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #90 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2009 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #50 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 9–20 | 31.0% | #72 | 1,640 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2010 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,760 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #56 | 1,732 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2011 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #142 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 8–23 | 25.8% | #107 | 1,644 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #70 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2013 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #220 | 1,718 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 14–27 | 34.1% | #77 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2014 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #112 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2015 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #40 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #98 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2016 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,818 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #115 | 1,684 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2017 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #32 | 1,788 | 0 | 6 | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #366 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2018 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #88 | 1,766 | 0 | 6 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #189 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |