H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Madison Brengle vs Ana Ivanovic H2H: 1-1
Madison Brengle and Ana Ivanovic are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Ana Ivanovic won the 2015 Wuhan third round 6-0 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.
USA
Age 36
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
SRB
Age 38
Right-Handed
184 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2015* | Wuhan | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Ana Ivanovic | 6-0 6-3 | Madison Brengle | Match data |
| Oct 10, 2014* | Linz | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Madison Brengle | (def.) | Ana Ivanovic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Madison Brengle | #210 | #35 | 1,324 | 1,740 | 94 | 151 | 38.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ana Ivanovic | #63 | #1 | 6,912 | 2,095 | 419 | 213 | 66.3% | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 15 |
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 | Madison Brengle | Ana Ivanovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #229 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #16 | 1,847 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #220 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #165 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 |
| 20 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 |
| 21 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #197 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 |
| 22 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 |
| 24 | 2014 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 |
| 25 | 2015 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #40 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 |
| 26 | 2016 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #73 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 |
| 27 | 2017 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #83 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 |
| 28 | 2018 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #88 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 |
| 29 | 2019 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #95 | 1,601 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2020 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #82 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2021 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #59 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2022 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2023 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #151 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |