H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Coco Vandeweghe vs Jarmila Wolfe H2H: 0-1
Jarmila Wolfe holds a 1–0 lead over Coco Vandeweghe in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jarmila Wolfe leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jarmila Wolfe won the 2012 Indian Wells first round 4-6 6-3 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 34
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6, 2012* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Jarmila Wolfe | 4-6 6-3 6-3 | Coco Vandeweghe | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coco Vandeweghe | #815 | #9 | 3,258 | 1,877 | 138 | 151 | 47.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Jarmila Wolfe | #623 | #25 | 2,060 | 1,799 | 104 | 137 | 43.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Coco Vandeweghe | Jarmila Wolfe | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #549 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #476 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #195 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #322 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #222 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2010 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #116 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #147 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2011 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #122 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #97 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #142 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #113 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #99 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2014 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #39 | 1,731 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #110 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #37 | 1,726 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 19–12 | 61.3% | #42 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2016 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #36 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #33 | 1,696 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2017 | 29–18 | 61.7% | #10 | 1,856 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #183 | 1,509 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2018 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #100 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #238 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2019 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #241 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #71 | 1,555 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #105 | 1,537 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2021 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #174 | 1,592 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #624 | 1,480 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2022 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #128 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #420 | 1,533 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |