H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Kiki Bertens vs Vania King H2H: 1-0
Kiki Bertens holds a 1–0 lead over Vania King in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kiki Bertens leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kiki Bertens won the 2012 Seoul third round 6-3 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.
NED
Age 34
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 20, 2012* | Seoul | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Kiki Bertens | 6-3 6-1 | Vania King | 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 |
| 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 | Kiki Bertens | Vania King | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2012 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #63 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2013 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #87 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #68 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2015 | 7–17 | 29.2% | #104 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2016 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #22 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2017 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,684 | 0 | 5 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2018 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #9 | 1,912 | 0 | 8 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2019 | 54–25 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,897 | 0 | 10 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2020 | 13–6 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,883 | 0 | 11 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2021 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #25 | 1,749 | 0 | 11 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |