H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC
Madison Keys vs Timea Bacsinszky H2H: 1-1
Madison Keys and Timea Bacsinszky are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Timea Bacsinszky leads 1–0 on clay, while Madison Keys leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Madison Keys won the 2015 Cincinnati second 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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
SUI
Age 37
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 2015* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Madison Keys | 6-4 6-3 | Timea Bacsinszky | Match data |
| May 30, 2015* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Timea Bacsinszky | 6-4 6-2 | 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 |
| Timea Bacsinszky | #941 | #9 | 3,157 | 1,933 | 161 | 137 | 54.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
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 | Timea Bacsinszky | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #252 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #273 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2012 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #137 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2013 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #122 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #54 | 1,592 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #53 | 1,739 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #50 | 1,693 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #247 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #179 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #237 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | 2014 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #48 | 1,678 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | 2015 | 37–14 | 72.5% | #12 | 1,842 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | 2016 | 32–17 | 65.3% | #15 | 1,777 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | 2017 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #39 | 1,816 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | 2018 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #191 | 1,725 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | 2019 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #139 | 1,630 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |