H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Alison Van Uytvanck vs Carina Witthoeft H2H: 2-1
Alison Van Uytvanck holds a 2–1 lead over Carina Witthoeft in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Alison Van Uytvanck leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Carina Witthoeft leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Alison Van Uytvanck won the 2016 Hobart third round 6-2 7-6(5).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
BEL
Age 32
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
GER
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12, 2017 | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | Q1 | Hard | Carina Witthoeft | 6-2 6-1 | Alison Van Uytvanck | Match data |
| Jan 13, 2016* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Alison Van Uytvanck | 6-2 7-6(5) | Carina Witthoeft | Match data |
| May 21, 2015* | Nuremberg | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Carina Witthoeft | 6-7(2) 6-3 6-3 | Alison Van Uytvanck | Match data |
| Apr 10, 2015* | Katowice | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Alison Van Uytvanck | 6-3 6-3 | Carina Witthoeft | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alison Van Uytvanck | #229 | #37 | 1,355 | 1,765 | 119 | 147 | 44.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Carina Witthoeft | #1,212 | #48 | 1,093 | 1,745 | 49 | 69 | 41.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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.
| Alison Van Uytvanck | Carina Witthoeft | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #287 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #225 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #199 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #210 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #112 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #105 | 1,452 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #106 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #64 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #44 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #88 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #121 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #51 | 1,745 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #76 | 1,619 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 5–18 | 21.7% | #170 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,650 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #47 | 1,713 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #64 | 1,663 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #58 | 1,752 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #72 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #344 | 1,682 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #229 | 1,607 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |