H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Thomas Enqvist vs Albert Costa H2H: 1-2
Albert Costa holds a 2–1 lead over Thomas Enqvist in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Albert Costa leads 2–0 on clay, while Thomas Enqvist leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Albert Costa won the 2000 Roland Garros third round 5-7 7-6(2) 6-1 3-6 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.
SWE
Age 52
Right-Handed
190 cm / 6'3"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 51
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2000* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Albert Costa | 5-7 7-6(2) 6-1 3-6 6-4 | Thomas Enqvist | Match data |
| Apr 22, 1998* | Monte Carlo Masters | Masters 1000 | R64 | Clay | Albert Costa | 6-1 6-3 | Thomas Enqvist | Match data |
| Mar 12, 1998* | Indian Wells Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Hard | Thomas Enqvist | 6-4 6-3 | Albert Costa | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Enqvist | #548 | #4 | 2,693 | 2,013 | 422 | 281 | 60.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 19 |
| Albert Costa | #669 | #6 | 2,385 | 1,996 | 368 | 263 | 58.3% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 12 |
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 | Thomas Enqvist | Albert Costa | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1989 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1103 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #472 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1991 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #231 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1992 | 16–9 | 64.0% | #63 | 1,734 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #221 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1993 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #88 | 1,712 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #52 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1994 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #59 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #24 | 1,758 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1995 | 63–22 | 74.1% | #7 | 1,982 | 0 | 7 | 1996 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #13 | 1,750 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 1996 | 49–25 | 66.2% | #9 | 1,980 | 0 | 10 | 1997 | 40–20 | 66.7% | #19 | 1,830 | 0 | 6 |
| 23 | 1997 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #28 | 1,873 | 0 | 11 | 1998 | 47–26 | 64.4% | #14 | 1,759 | 0 | 8 |
| 24 | 1998 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #22 | 1,869 | 0 | 13 | 1999 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #18 | 1,810 | 0 | 11 |
| 25 | 1999 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #4 | 1,913 | 0 | 16 | 2000 | 29–22 | 56.9% | #26 | 1,779 | 0 | 11 |
| 26 | 2000 | 51–23 | 68.9% | #9 | 1,906 | 0 | 18 | 2001 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #40 | 1,807 | 0 | 11 |
| 27 | 2001 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #24 | 1,848 | 0 | 18 | 2002 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #9 | 1,796 | 1 | 12 |
| 28 | 2002 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #44 | 1,792 | 0 | 19 | 2003 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #25 | 1,767 | 1 | 12 |
| 29 | 2003 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #96 | 1,710 | 0 | 19 | 2004 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #56 | 1,668 | 1 | 12 |
| 30 | 2004 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #72 | 1,627 | 0 | 19 | 2005 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #116 | 1,619 | 1 | 12 |
| 31 | 2005 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #133 | 1,589 | 0 | 19 | 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #623 | 1,631 | 1 | 12 |