H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Madison Keys vs Bethanie Mattek-Sands H2H: 3-0
Madison Keys holds a 3–0 lead over Bethanie Mattek-Sands in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Madison Keys leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Madison Keys won the 2018 Cincinnati second round 3-6 7-6(3) 6-4.
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 31
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 41
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 15, 2018* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Madison Keys | 3-6 7-6(3) 6-4 | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | Match data |
| Jan 11, 2014* | Sydney | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Madison Keys | 3-2 (ret.) | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | Match data |
| Apr 5, 2013* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Madison Keys | 7-6(4) 6-4 | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | 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 Keys | #23 | #5 | 4,999 | 2,136 | 363 | 211 | 63.2% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 11 |
| Bethanie Mattek-Sands | #1,356 | #30 | 1,643 | 1,777 | 132 | 172 | 43.4% | 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 | Madison Keys | Bethanie Mattek-Sands | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #616 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #273 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #343 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2012 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #137 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2013 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #158 | 1,428 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #172 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #123 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #126 | 1,572 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #114 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 19–14 | 57.6% | #39 | 1,700 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #153 | 1,622 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #58 | 1,702 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 18–14 | 56.2% | #55 | 1,707 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | 2012 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #169 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | 2013 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #48 | 1,692 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | 2014 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | 2015 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #60 | 1,681 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | 2016 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #178 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #123 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #350 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #370 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #368 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1360 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |