H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:32 UTC
Sloane Stephens vs Coco Vandeweghe H2H: 1-2
Coco Vandeweghe holds a 2–1 lead over Sloane Stephens in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Coco Vandeweghe leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Coco Vandeweghe won the 2018 Stuttgart third round 6-1 6-0.
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 33
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 34
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 26, 2018* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Coco Vandeweghe | 6-1 6-0 | Sloane Stephens | Match data |
| Sep 2, 2015* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Coco Vandeweghe | 6-4 6-3 | Sloane Stephens | Match data |
| May 22, 2015* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Sloane Stephens | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sloane Stephens | #315 | #3 | 5,727 | 1,970 | 298 | 240 | 55.4% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 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 | Sloane Stephens | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #476 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #204 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #322 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2011 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #96 | 1,581 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #116 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2012 | 21–17 | 55.3% | #38 | 1,709 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #122 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2013 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #12 | 1,831 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #97 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2014 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #36 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #113 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2015 | 34–20 | 63.0% | #30 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #39 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2016 | 21–8 | 72.4% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,726 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2017 | 15–7 | 68.2% | #13 | 1,879 | 1 | 5 | 2016 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #36 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2018 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #6 | 1,931 | 1 | 6 | 2017 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #10 | 1,856 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2019 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #25 | 1,789 | 1 | 6 | 2018 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #100 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2020 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #39 | 1,642 | 1 | 6 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #241 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2021 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #65 | 1,762 | 1 | 6 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2022 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #37 | 1,784 | 1 | 7 | 2021 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #174 | 1,592 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2023 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #47 | 1,799 | 1 | 7 | 2022 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #128 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2024 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #74 | 1,691 | 1 | 8 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #420 | 1,533 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | 2025 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #479 | 1,607 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2026 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #315 | 1,616 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |