H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Anett Kontaveit vs Kiki Bertens H2H: 1-3
Kiki Bertens holds a 3–1 lead over Anett Kontaveit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Kiki Bertens leads 2–1 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Kiki Bertens won the 2020 Brisbane fourth round 6-3 2-6 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.
EST
Age 30
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
NED
Age 34
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2020* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Kiki Bertens | 6-3 2-6 7-5 | Anett Kontaveit | Match data |
| Aug 17, 2018* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Kiki Bertens | 6-3 2-6 6-3 | Anett Kontaveit | Match data |
| Jul 23, 2017* | Gstaad | WTA 250 | F | Clay | Kiki Bertens | 6-4 3-6 6-1 | Anett Kontaveit | Match data |
| Aug 24, 2016* | New Haven | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Anett Kontaveit | 6-3 6-4 | Kiki Bertens | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anett Kontaveit | #81 | #2 | 4,721 | 2,109 | 205 | 138 | 59.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| 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 | Anett Kontaveit | Kiki Bertens | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #249 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #159 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2015 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #91 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2016 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #112 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #63 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2017 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #34 | 1,706 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #87 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2018 | 33–23 | 58.9% | #20 | 1,832 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #68 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2019 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 7–17 | 29.2% | #104 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2020 | 21–11 | 65.6% | #23 | 1,912 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #22 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2021 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #7 | 2,049 | 0 | 5 | 2017 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,684 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2022 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #17 | 1,882 | 0 | 6 | 2018 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #9 | 1,912 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | 2023 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #81 | 1,776 | 0 | 6 | 2019 | 54–25 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,897 | 0 | 10 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 13–6 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,883 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #25 | 1,749 | 0 | 11 |