H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 22:32 UTC
Belinda Bencic vs Marina Erakovic H2H: 1-0
Belinda Bencic holds a 1–0 lead over Marina Erakovic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Belinda Bencic leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Belinda Bencic won the 2014 Charleston third round 6-2 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SUI
Age 29
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 3, 2014* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Belinda Bencic | 6-2 6-1 | Marina Erakovic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belinda Bencic | #14 | #4 | 4,745 | 2,032 | 298 | 187 | 61.4% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 9 |
| Marina Erakovic | #827 | #39 | 1,392 | 1,701 | 105 | 131 | 44.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Belinda Bencic | Marina Erakovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #612 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2013 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #184 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2014 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #32 | 1,697 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2015 | 40–21 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,886 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2016 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #43 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2017 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #98 | 1,686 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2018 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #54 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2019 | 48–21 | 69.6% | #8 | 1,923 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2020 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #12 | 1,850 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2021 | 28–19 | 59.6% | #23 | 1,848 | 0 | 4 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2022 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,884 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2023 | 31–13 | 70.5% | #17 | 1,921 | 0 | 7 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2025 | 36–16 | 69.2% | #11 | 2,004 | 0 | 9 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2026 | 18–9 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,998 | 0 | 9 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 |