H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Alison Van Uytvanck vs Kiki Bertens H2H: 0-1
Kiki Bertens holds a 1–0 lead over Alison Van Uytvanck in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kiki Bertens leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kiki Bertens won the 2019 Linz fourth round 4-6 6-3 6-3.
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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
NED
Age 34
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2019* | Linz | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Kiki Bertens | 4-6 6-3 6-3 | Alison Van Uytvanck | 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 |
| Kiki Bertens | #25 | #4 | 5,430 | 2,015 | 214 | 168 | 56.0% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 11 |
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 | Alison Van Uytvanck | Kiki Bertens | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #287 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2012 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #199 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #112 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #106 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #63 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2015 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #44 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #87 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2016 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #121 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #68 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2017 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #76 | 1,619 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 7–17 | 29.2% | #104 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2018 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,650 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #22 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2019 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #47 | 1,713 | 0 | 4 | 2017 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,684 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2020 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #64 | 1,663 | 0 | 4 | 2018 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #9 | 1,912 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | 2021 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #58 | 1,752 | 0 | 5 | 2019 | 54–25 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,897 | 0 | 10 |
| 28 | 2022 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #72 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 | 2020 | 13–6 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,883 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | 2023 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #344 | 1,682 | 0 | 5 | 2021 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #25 | 1,749 | 0 | 11 |
| 30 | 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #229 | 1,607 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |