H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Daniela Hantuchova vs Shahar Peer H2H: 2-2
Daniela Hantuchova and Shahar Peer are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Daniela Hantuchova leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2010 Stanford third round 0-6 6-4 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.
SVK
Age 43
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2010* | Stanford | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 0-6 6-4 6-3 | Daniela Hantuchova | Match data |
| Oct 24, 2009* | Luxembourg | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-2 7-6(4) | Daniela Hantuchova | Match data |
| Mar 10, 2007* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | QF | Hard | Daniela Hantuchova | 6-2 5-7 7-6(5) | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Jun 23, 2005* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Daniela Hantuchova | 6-2 2-6 6-3 | Shahar Peer | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniela Hantuchova | #317 | #5 | 2,897 | 1,968 | 457 | 361 | 55.9% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| Shahar Peer | #1,185 | #11 | 3,410 | 1,966 | 268 | 204 | 56.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
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 | Daniela Hantuchova | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #197 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2000 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #108 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2001 | 19–16 | 54.3% | #38 | 1,710 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2002 | 48–24 | 66.7% | #8 | 1,919 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2003 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #19 | 1,753 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2004 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #31 | 1,714 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2005 | 38–25 | 60.3% | #19 | 1,877 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2006 | 35–25 | 58.3% | #17 | 1,860 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2007 | 52–26 | 66.7% | #9 | 1,930 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2008 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #21 | 1,756 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2009 | 37–24 | 60.7% | #24 | 1,807 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2010 | 32–24 | 57.1% | #30 | 1,780 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2011 | 41–25 | 62.1% | #24 | 1,790 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2012 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #32 | 1,686 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2013 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #33 | 1,683 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2014 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #62 | 1,577 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2015 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #83 | 1,574 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2016 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #228 | 1,514 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2017 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #317 | 1,524 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |