H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Camila Giorgi vs Ana Ivanovic H2H: 0-2
Ana Ivanovic holds a 2–0 lead over Camila Giorgi in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ana Ivanovic leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ana Ivanovic won the 2016 Indian Wells second round 2-6 6-2 7-6(5).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ITA
Age 34
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
SRB
Age 38
Right-Handed
184 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2016* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Ana Ivanovic | 2-6 6-2 7-6(5) | Camila Giorgi | Match data |
| Sep 25, 2015* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Ana Ivanovic | 7-5 6-2 | Camila Giorgi | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camila Giorgi | #116 | #26 | 1,978 | 1,875 | 204 | 184 | 52.6% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Ana Ivanovic | #63 | #1 | 6,912 | 2,095 | 419 | 213 | 66.3% | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 15 |
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 | Camila Giorgi | Ana Ivanovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 19 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #151 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 |
| 20 | 2012 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #75 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 |
| 21 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #98 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 |
| 22 | 2014 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #34 | 1,710 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 |
| 23 | 2015 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #35 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 |
| 24 | 2016 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #82 | 1,638 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 |
| 25 | 2017 | 15–12 | 55.6% | #78 | 1,778 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 |
| 26 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 |
| 27 | 2019 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #100 | 1,725 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 |
| 28 | 2020 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #76 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 |
| 29 | 2021 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #33 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2022 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #66 | 1,763 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2023 | 20–15 | 57.1% | #53 | 1,788 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2024 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #116 | 1,760 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |