H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC

Coco Vandeweghe vs Venus Williams H2H: 0-2

Venus Williams holds a 2–0 lead over Coco Vandeweghe in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Venus Williams leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Venus Williams won the 2017 Australian Open semifinal 6-7(3) 6-2 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.

Coco Vandeweghe
USA Age 34 Right-Handed 185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
0 – 2
2 main draw meetings
Venus Williams
USA Age 46 Right-Handed 185 cm / 6'1"

H2H Match Log

DateTournamentCategoryRoundSurfaceWinnerScoreLoserMatch
Jan 28, 2017* Australian Open Grand Slam SF Hard Venus Williams #17 6-7(3) 6-2 6-3 Coco Vandeweghe #35 Match data
May 11, 2016* Rome WTA 1000 R64 Clay Venus Williams #14 6-4 6-3 Coco Vandeweghe #40 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
Venus Williams #467 #1 7,452 2,362 768 288 72.7% 7 9 1 20 10 47

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 Venus Williams
YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles YrW-LWin %RankEloGSTitles
14 2006 0–1 0.0% — 1,484 0 0 1994 1–1 50.0% — 1,525 0 0
15 2007 0–1 0.0% #549 1,479 0 0 1995 2–3 40.0% #205 1,561 0 0
16 2008 0–3 0.0% #476 1,453 0 0 1996 2–5 28.6% #216 1,571 0 0
17 2009 1–2 33.3% #322 1,465 0 0 1997 20–13 60.6% #22 1,851 0 0
18 2010 6–6 50.0% #116 1,566 0 0 1998 50–13 79.4% #5 2,094 0 2
19 2011 8–13 38.1% #122 1,544 0 0 1999 57–11 83.8% #3 2,258 0 8
20 2012 6–7 46.2% #97 1,606 0 0 2000 35–4 89.7% #3 2,321 2 13
21 2013 5–11 31.2% #113 1,563 0 0 2001 46–6 88.5% #3 2,338 4 19
22 2014 22–14 61.1% #39 1,731 0 1 2002 63–9 87.5% #2 2,297 4 26
23 2015 20–21 48.8% #37 1,726 0 1 2003 24–5 82.8% #11 2,257 4 27
24 2016 22–17 56.4% #36 1,726 0 2 2004 40–13 75.5% #9 2,072 4 29
25 2017 29–18 61.7% #10 1,856 0 2 2005 34–10 77.3% #10 2,085 5 31
26 2018 9–16 36.0% #100 1,688 0 2 2006 13–6 68.4% #46 2,007 5 31
27 2019 1–3 25.0% #241 1,688 0 2 2007 46–10 82.1% #8 2,048 6 34
28 2020 0–2 0.0% #214 1,624 0 2 2008 37–10 78.7% #6 2,133 7 37
29 2021 4–9 30.8% #174 1,592 0 2 2009 38–16 70.4% #6 1,981 7 39
30 2022 4–5 44.4% #128 1,666 0 2 2010 38–7 84.4% #5 2,057 7 41
31 2023 1–2 33.3% #420 1,533 0 2 2011 8–4 66.7% #102 1,994 7 41
32 — — — — — — — 2012 22–8 73.3% #24 2,007 7 42
33 — — — — — — — 2013 15–11 57.7% #47 1,889 7 42
34 — — — — — — — 2014 33–15 68.8% #18 1,874 7 43
35 — — — — — — — 2015 39–14 73.6% #7 1,957 7 46
36 — — — — — — — 2016 24–14 63.2% #17 1,830 7 47
37 — — — — — — — 2017 38–15 71.7% #5 1,935 7 47
38 — — — — — — — 2018 15–11 57.7% #39 1,867 7 47
39 — — — — — — — 2019 20–15 57.1% #52 1,827 7 47
40 — — — — — — — 2020 1–8 11.1% #79 1,717 7 47
41 — — — — — — — 2021 3–9 25.0% #318 1,649 7 47
42 — — — — — — — 2022 0–4 0.0% #1000 1,603 7 47
43 — — — — — — — 2023 3–7 30.0% #412 1,594 7 47