H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Coco Vandeweghe vs Naomi Broady H2H: 1-0
Coco Vandeweghe holds a 1–0 lead over Naomi Broady in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Coco Vandeweghe leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Coco Vandeweghe won the 2016 Roland Garros first round 6-4 3-6 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.
USA
Age 34
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 36
Right-Handed
189 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 24, 2016* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Coco Vandeweghe | 6-4 3-6 6-3 | Naomi Broady | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coco Vandeweghe | #815 | #9 | 3,258 | 1,877 | 138 | 151 | 47.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Naomi Broady | #1,209 | #76 | 875 | 1,604 | 24 | 41 | 36.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Coco Vandeweghe | Naomi Broady | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #549 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #476 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #322 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2010 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #116 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2011 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #122 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #298 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #97 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #287 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #113 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #196 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2014 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #39 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #287 | 1,463 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,726 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2016 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #36 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #170 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2017 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #10 | 1,856 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #121 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2018 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #100 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #91 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #241 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #117 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #250 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2021 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #174 | 1,592 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2022 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #128 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #420 | 1,533 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |