H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Madison Keys vs Laura Siegemund H2H: 2-2
Madison Keys and Laura Siegemund are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on grass, while Laura Siegemund leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Madison Keys won the 2025 Montreal second round 6-2 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.
USA
Age 31
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
GER
Age 38
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 2025 | Montreal | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Madison Keys | 6-2 6-1 | Laura Siegemund | Match data |
| Jul 4, 2025 | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Laura Siegemund | 6-3 6-3 | Madison Keys | Match data |
| Jun 29, 2016* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Madison Keys | 6-3 6-1 | Laura Siegemund | Match data |
| Apr 7, 2016* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Laura Siegemund | 6-7(3) 6-4 6-4 | Madison Keys | 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 |
| Laura Siegemund | #87 | #27 | 1,630 | 1,828 | 143 | 152 | 48.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
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 | Laura Siegemund | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2012 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #137 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2013 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #220 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | 2015 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #98 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | 2016 | 27–17 | 61.4% | #31 | 1,735 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | 2017 | 14–12 | 53.8% | #69 | 1,792 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #113 | 1,691 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | 2019 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #75 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 11–9 | 55.0% | #51 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #125 | 1,727 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #177 | 1,652 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #86 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #80 | 1,738 | 0 | 2 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #46 | 1,803 | 0 | 2 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2026 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #87 | 1,748 | 0 | 2 |