H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:32 UTC
Madison Keys vs Lucie Safarova H2H: 1-2
Lucie Safarova holds a 2–1 lead over Madison Keys in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Lucie Safarova leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Lucie Safarova won the 2014 Tokyo third round 6-7(4) 6-4 6-2.
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
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 39
Left-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2014* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 6-7(4) 6-4 6-2 | Madison Keys | Match data |
| Jan 10, 2013* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Madison Keys | 6-2 6-1 | Lucie Safarova | Match data |
| Sep 1, 2011* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 3-6 7-5 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 |
| Lucie Safarova | #1,269 | #5 | 4,055 | 1,929 | 351 | 270 | 56.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
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 | Lucie Safarova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2005 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #47 | 1,665 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,625 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #23 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #63 | 1,640 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #41 | 1,768 | 0 | 4 |
| 23 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #33 | 1,722 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 34–23 | 59.6% | #25 | 1,797 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #17 | 1,771 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #29 | 1,797 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | 2014 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #16 | 1,858 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | 2015 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #9 | 1,829 | 0 | 6 |
| 29 | 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #62 | 1,696 | 0 | 7 |
| 30 | 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | 2017 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #30 | 1,791 | 0 | 7 |
| 31 | 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #105 | 1,754 | 0 | 7 |