H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Camila Giorgi vs Zarina Diyas H2H: 2-1
Camila Giorgi holds a 2–1 lead over Zarina Diyas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Camila Giorgi leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Zarina Diyas leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Zarina Diyas won the 2021 Lausanne fourth round 6-4 6-4.
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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
KAZ
Age 32
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2021* | Lausanne | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Zarina Diyas | 6-4 6-4 | Camila Giorgi | Match data |
| Aug 3, 2019* | Washington | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Camila Giorgi | 6-3 6-2 | Zarina Diyas | Match data |
| Jan 13, 2016* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Camila Giorgi | 6-4 1-6 6-1 | Zarina Diyas | 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 |
| Zarina Diyas | #437 | #31 | 1,495 | 1,751 | 99 | 127 | 43.8% | 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 | Camila Giorgi | Zarina Diyas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #242 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #172 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #227 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #151 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #75 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #33 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #98 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #52 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2014 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #34 | 1,710 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #150 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2015 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #35 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #66 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2016 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #82 | 1,638 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #89 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2017 | 15–12 | 55.6% | #78 | 1,778 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #77 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 2 | 2020 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #80 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2019 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #100 | 1,725 | 0 | 2 | 2021 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #102 | 1,688 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2020 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #76 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1031 | 1,680 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2021 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #33 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2022 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #66 | 1,763 | 0 | 3 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #382 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2023 | 20–15 | 57.1% | #53 | 1,788 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2024 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #116 | 1,760 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |