H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Anett Kontaveit vs Rebecca Peterson H2H: 2-0
Anett Kontaveit holds a 2–0 lead over Rebecca Peterson in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Anett Kontaveit leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anett Kontaveit won the 2022 Hamburg fourth round 6-3 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.
EST
Age 30
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 30
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 21, 2022* | Hamburg | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Anett Kontaveit | 6-3 6-2 | Rebecca Peterson | Match data |
| Oct 30, 2021* | Transylvania Open | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Anett Kontaveit | 6-3 6-2 | Rebecca Peterson | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anett Kontaveit | #81 | #2 | 4,721 | 2,109 | 205 | 138 | 59.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Rebecca Peterson | #573 | #43 | 1,332 | 1,863 | 79 | 93 | 45.9% | 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 | Anett Kontaveit | Rebecca Peterson | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #249 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #263 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #159 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #230 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2015 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #91 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2016 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #112 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #146 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2017 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #34 | 1,706 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #174 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2018 | 33–23 | 58.9% | #20 | 1,832 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,692 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2019 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #44 | 1,863 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2020 | 21–11 | 65.6% | #23 | 1,912 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #55 | 1,696 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2021 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #7 | 2,049 | 0 | 5 | 2021 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #88 | 1,698 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2022 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #17 | 1,882 | 0 | 6 | 2022 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #119 | 1,659 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2023 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #81 | 1,776 | 0 | 6 | 2023 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #127 | 1,647 | 0 | 2 |