H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Belinda Bencic vs Mona Barthel H2H: 1-1
Belinda Bencic and Mona Barthel are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Mona Barthel leads 1–0 on clay, while Belinda Bencic leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Belinda Bencic won the 2015 Eastbourne second round 6-4 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.
SUI
Age 29
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
GER
Age 36
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2015* | Eastbourne | WTA 500 | R64 | Grass | Belinda Bencic | 6-4 7-6(7) | Mona Barthel | Match data |
| May 22, 2014* | Nuremberg | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Mona Barthel | 7-6(4) 6-3 | Belinda Bencic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belinda Bencic | #14 | #4 | 4,745 | 2,032 | 298 | 187 | 61.4% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 9 |
| Mona Barthel | #223 | #23 | 1,762 | 1,841 | 151 | 179 | 45.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
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 | Belinda Bencic | Mona Barthel | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #612 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2013 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #184 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2014 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #32 | 1,697 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2015 | 40–21 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,886 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2016 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #43 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #195 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2017 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #98 | 1,686 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #69 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2018 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #54 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #39 | 1,682 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2019 | 48–21 | 69.6% | #8 | 1,923 | 0 | 4 | 2013 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #34 | 1,646 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2020 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #12 | 1,850 | 0 | 4 | 2014 | 23–23 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,712 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2021 | 28–19 | 59.6% | #23 | 1,848 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 24–26 | 48.0% | #45 | 1,672 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2022 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,884 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #158 | 1,555 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2023 | 31–13 | 70.5% | #17 | 1,921 | 0 | 7 | 2017 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #48 | 1,600 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #77 | 1,625 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 2025 | 36–16 | 69.2% | #11 | 2,004 | 0 | 9 | 2019 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #183 | 1,552 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2026 | 18–9 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,998 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #275 | 1,458 | 0 | 4 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #171 | 1,525 | 0 | 4 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2026 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #223 | 1,535 | 0 | 4 |