H2H data updated: 2026-07-25 23:01 UTC
Cagla Buyukakcay vs Ekaterina Makarova H2H: 0-1
Ekaterina Makarova holds a 1–0 lead over Cagla Buyukakcay in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ekaterina Makarova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ekaterina Makarova won the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics second round 3-6 6-0 7-6(6).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
TUR
Age 36
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2016* | Rio de Janeiro Olympics | Olympics | R64 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 3-6 6-0 7-6(6) | Cagla Buyukakcay | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cagla Buyukakcay | #410 | #60 | 980 | 1,613 | 22 | 53 | 29.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Ekaterina Makarova | #1,000 | #8 | 3,620 | 1,941 | 250 | 223 | 52.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 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 | Cagla Buyukakcay | Ekaterina Makarova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #388 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #280 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,633 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,663 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #158 | 1,438 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,605 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2014 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #137 | 1,442 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2015 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #126 | 1,423 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,836 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2016 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #83 | 1,529 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,838 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2017 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #160 | 1,513 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,794 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2018 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,523 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 25–19 | 56.8% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2019 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #179 | 1,532 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,841 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #178 | 1,558 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,754 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2021 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #241 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,704 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | 2023 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #382 | 1,471 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |