H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Kiki Bertens vs Kurumi Nara H2H: 0-1
Kurumi Nara holds a 1–0 lead over Kiki Bertens in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kurumi Nara leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kurumi Nara won the 2015 Auckland third round 6-3 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
NED
Age 34
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
JPN
Age 34
Right-Handed
155 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2015* | Auckland | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Kurumi Nara | 6-3 6-2 | Kiki Bertens | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kiki Bertens | #25 | #4 | 5,430 | 2,015 | 214 | 168 | 56.0% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 11 |
| Kurumi Nara | #246 | #32 | 1,412 | 1,700 | 82 | 116 | 41.4% | 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 | Kiki Bertens | Kurumi Nara | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #181 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #130 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #140 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #63 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #148 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #87 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #81 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #68 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #44 | 1,649 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2015 | 7–17 | 29.2% | #104 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #81 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2016 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #22 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2017 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,684 | 0 | 5 | 2017 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #102 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2018 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #9 | 1,912 | 0 | 8 | 2018 | 0–13 | 0.0% | #161 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2019 | 54–25 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,897 | 0 | 10 | 2019 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #140 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2020 | 13–6 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,883 | 0 | 11 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2021 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #25 | 1,749 | 0 | 11 | 2021 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #185 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 |