H2H data updated: 2026-07-20 04:32 UTC
Barbora Krejcikova vs Dominika Cibulkova H2H: 1-0
Barbora Krejcikova holds a 1–0 lead over Dominika Cibulkova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Barbora Krejcikova leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Barbora Krejcikova won the 2016 Prague third round 6-2 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.
CZE
Age 30
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
SVK
Age 37
Right-Handed
161 cm / 5'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2016* | Prague | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Barbora Krejcikova | 6-2 6-2 | Dominika Cibulkova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbora Krejcikova | #32 | #2 | 5,533 | 2,028 | 168 | 101 | 62.5% | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 9 |
| Dominika Cibulkova | #315 | #4 | 5,245 | 1,966 | 365 | 261 | 58.3% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 |
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 | Barbora Krejcikova | Dominika Cibulkova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #153 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2014 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #51 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #19 | 1,840 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2016 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #252 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #28 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2017 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #126 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 30–24 | 55.6% | #31 | 1,753 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #204 | 1,553 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 41–21 | 66.1% | #18 | 1,893 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2019 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #131 | 1,553 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #15 | 1,810 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2020 | 9–5 | 64.3% | #65 | 1,707 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #23 | 1,738 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2021 | 42–15 | 73.7% | #5 | 1,955 | 1 | 3 | 2014 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #10 | 1,721 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2022 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #22 | 1,928 | 1 | 5 | 2015 | 19–16 | 54.3% | #38 | 1,757 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 2023 | 32–18 | 64.0% | #10 | 1,910 | 1 | 7 | 2016 | 53–21 | 71.6% | #5 | 1,951 | 0 | 8 |
| 28 | 2024 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #10 | 1,893 | 2 | 8 | 2017 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #26 | 1,778 | 0 | 8 |
| 29 | 2025 | 14–9 | 60.9% | #65 | 1,895 | 2 | 8 | 2018 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #25 | 1,865 | 0 | 8 |
| 30 | 2026 | 14–7 | 66.7% | #32 | 1,954 | 2 | 9 | 2019 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #315 | 1,764 | 0 | 8 |