H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Kiki Bertens vs Veronica Cepede Royg H2H: 1-0
Kiki Bertens holds a 1–0 lead over Veronica Cepede Royg in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kiki Bertens leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Kiki Bertens won the 2018 Charleston second round 6-4 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
PAR
Age 34
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2018* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Kiki Bertens | 6-4 6-1 | Veronica Cepede Royg | Match data |
| Jan 10, 2016 | Hobart | WTA 250 | Q4 | Hard | Kiki Bertens | 7-5 6-1 | Veronica Cepede Royg | 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 |
| Veronica Cepede Royg | #917 | #73 | 820 | 1,692 | 26 | 41 | 38.8% | 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 | Kiki Bertens | Veronica Cepede Royg | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2012 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #63 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2013 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #87 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #68 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #164 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2015 | 7–17 | 29.2% | #104 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #141 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2016 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #22 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #129 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2017 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,684 | 0 | 5 | 2017 | 12–14 | 46.2% | #75 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2018 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #9 | 1,912 | 0 | 8 | 2018 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #138 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2019 | 54–25 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,897 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2020 | 13–6 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,883 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2021 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #25 | 1,749 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |