H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Monica Puig vs Nicole Gibbs H2H: 4-0
Monica Puig holds a 4–0 lead over Nicole Gibbs in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Monica Puig leads 3–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Monica Puig won the 2018 Monterrey third round 6-3 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.
PUR
Age 32
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 33
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2018* | Monterrey | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Monica Puig | 6-3 6-3 | Nicole Gibbs | Match data |
| Apr 17, 2015* | Bogota | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Monica Puig | 6-4 6-2 | Nicole Gibbs | Match data |
| Mar 10, 2015* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Monica Puig | 6-3 7-5 | Nicole Gibbs | Match data |
| Apr 4, 2014* | Monterrey | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Monica Puig | 6-4 6-2 | Nicole Gibbs | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monica Puig | #1,073 | #27 | 1,570 | 1,838 | 128 | 136 | 48.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Nicole Gibbs | #175 | #68 | 946 | 1,692 | 37 | 60 | 38.1% | 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 | Monica Puig | Nicole Gibbs | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #211 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #124 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2013 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #56 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #222 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #59 | 1,616 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #185 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2015 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #92 | 1,579 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2016 | 31–22 | 58.5% | #32 | 1,713 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #109 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2017 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #58 | 1,709 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #89 | 1,590 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2018 | 18–14 | 56.2% | #53 | 1,775 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #109 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2019 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #79 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #123 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #105 | 1,629 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #126 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #172 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1073 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |