H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Madison Keys vs Madison Brengle H2H: 3-0
Madison Keys holds a 3–0 lead over Madison Brengle 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 2016 Montreal third round 6-4 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 31
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 36
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2016* | Montreal | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Madison Keys | 6-4 6-3 | Madison Brengle | Match data |
| May 13, 2015* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Madison Keys | 6-2 6-4 | Madison Brengle | Match data |
| Jan 27, 2015* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Madison Keys | 6-2 6-4 | Madison Brengle | 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 |
| Madison Brengle | #210 | #35 | 1,324 | 1,740 | 94 | 151 | 38.4% | 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 | Madison Brengle | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #229 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2013 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #220 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #165 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #197 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | 2014 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #95 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | 2015 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #40 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | 2016 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #73 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | 2017 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #83 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | 2018 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #88 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | 2019 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #95 | 1,601 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | 2020 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #82 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | 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 |