H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Coco Vandeweghe vs Vania King H2H: 1-1
Coco Vandeweghe and Vania King are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Coco Vandeweghe leads 1–0 on grass, while Vania King leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Coco Vandeweghe won the 2014 S Hertogenbosch fourth round 6-7(6) 6-0 2-1 RET.
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
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2014 | S Hertogenbosch | WTA 250 | R16 | Grass | Coco Vandeweghe | 6-7(6) 6-0 2-1 (ret.) | Vania King | Match data |
| Jul 30, 2012 | Washington | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Vania King | 6-1 3-6 6-4 | Coco Vandeweghe | Match data |
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 |
| Vania King | #824 | #50 | 1,225 | 1,760 | 128 | 160 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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 | Coco Vandeweghe | Vania King | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #322 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2010 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #116 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2011 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #122 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2012 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #97 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2013 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #113 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2014 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #39 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,726 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2016 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #36 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2017 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #10 | 1,856 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2018 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #100 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #241 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2021 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #174 | 1,592 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2022 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #128 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #420 | 1,533 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |