H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:30 UTC
Bethanie Mattek-Sands vs Eugenie Bouchard H2H: 2-1
Bethanie Mattek-Sands holds a 2–1 lead over Eugenie Bouchard in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Bethanie Mattek-Sands leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Eugenie Bouchard won the 2016 Hobart third round 6-2 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
CAN
Age 32
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2016* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Eugenie Bouchard | 6-2 6-1 | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | Match data |
| Feb 12, 2014* | Doha | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | 7-5 6-1 | Eugenie Bouchard | Match data |
| Jan 9, 2014* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | 6-4 6-3 | Eugenie Bouchard | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bethanie Mattek-Sands | #1,356 | #30 | 1,643 | 1,777 | 132 | 172 | 43.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eugenie Bouchard | #1,002 | #5 | 4,793 | 1,926 | 156 | 144 | 52.0% | 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.
| Age | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | Eugenie Bouchard | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2001 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #343 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #305 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2003 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #158 | 1,428 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #147 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #172 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #32 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2005 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #123 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #7 | 1,834 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2006 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #126 | 1,572 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #49 | 1,678 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2007 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #114 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 28–22 | 56.0% | #46 | 1,699 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2008 | 19–14 | 57.6% | #39 | 1,700 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #81 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2009 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #153 | 1,622 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #87 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2010 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #58 | 1,702 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #215 | 1,616 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2011 | 18–14 | 56.2% | #55 | 1,707 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 10–4 | 71.4% | #141 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2012 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #169 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #253 | 1,703 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2013 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #48 | 1,692 | 0 | 0 | 2022 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #326 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2014 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 | 2023 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #287 | 1,635 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2015 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #60 | 1,681 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2016 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #178 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2025 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #1002 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | 2017 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #123 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2018 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #350 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #370 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #368 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2023 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1360 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |