H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC
Naomi Osaka vs Coco Vandeweghe H2H: 1-0
Naomi Osaka holds a 1–0 lead over Coco Vandeweghe in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Naomi Osaka leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Naomi Osaka won the 2016 US Open first round 6-7(4) 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
JPN
Age 28
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 34
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2016* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Naomi Osaka | 6-7(4) 6-3 6-4 | Coco Vandeweghe | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naomi Osaka | #13 | #1 | 7,985 | 2,140 | 240 | 130 | 64.9% | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Coco Vandeweghe | #815 | #9 | 3,258 | 1,877 | 138 | 151 | 47.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 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 | Naomi Osaka | Coco Vandeweghe | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #549 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 2014 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #260 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #476 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2015 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #144 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #322 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2016 | 20–13 | 60.6% | #48 | 1,700 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #116 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2017 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #68 | 1,697 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #122 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2018 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #5 | 1,904 | 1 | 2 | 2012 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #97 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2019 | 40–13 | 75.5% | #3 | 2,030 | 2 | 5 | 2013 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #113 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2020 | 16–3 | 84.2% | #3 | 2,082 | 3 | 6 | 2014 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #39 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2021 | 18–7 | 72.0% | #13 | 2,002 | 4 | 7 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,726 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2022 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #42 | 1,894 | 4 | 7 | 2016 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #36 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #10 | 1,856 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2024 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #57 | 1,883 | 4 | 7 | 2018 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #100 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2025 | 31–14 | 68.9% | #16 | 1,968 | 4 | 8 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #241 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2026 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #13 | 2,044 | 4 | 8 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #174 | 1,592 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #128 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #420 | 1,533 | 0 | 2 |