H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Ana Ivanovic vs Emilie Loit H2H: 2-0
Ana Ivanovic holds a 2–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ana Ivanovic leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ana Ivanovic won the 2008 Miami second round 6-1 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SRB
Age 38
Right-Handed
184 cm / 6'0"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2008* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Ana Ivanovic | 6-1 6-2 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| May 31, 2006* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Ana Ivanovic | 6-1 6-1 | Emilie Loit | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ana Ivanovic | #63 | #1 | 6,912 | 2,095 | 419 | 213 | 66.3% | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 15 |
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
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 | Ana Ivanovic | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2004 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2005 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #16 | 1,847 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2006 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |