H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Donna Vekic vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-0
Donna Vekic holds a 1–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Donna Vekic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Donna Vekic won the 2014 Miami first round 7-6(2) 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CRO
Age 30
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18, 2014* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Donna Vekic | 7-6(2) 6-2 | Kimiko Date Krumm | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donna Vekic | #35 | #17 | 2,458 | 1,908 | 230 | 232 | 49.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Kimiko Date Krumm | — | — | — | 2,091 | 241 | 188 | 56.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 |
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 | Donna Vekic | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2012 | 4–1 | 80.0% | #108 | 1,565 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2013 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #96 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2014 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #82 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2015 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #103 | 1,606 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2016 | 4–16 | 20.0% | #101 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2017 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #55 | 1,669 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2018 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #34 | 1,761 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2019 | 35–24 | 59.3% | #19 | 1,767 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2020 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #32 | 1,693 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2021 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #68 | 1,745 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2022 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #67 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2023 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #23 | 1,776 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2024 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #19 | 1,862 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2025 | 14–21 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2026 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #35 | 1,795 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 2,042 | 0 | 7 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 6–11 | 35.3% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 8 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 19–18 | 51.4% | — | 1,814 | 0 | 8 |
| 40 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 7–24 | 22.6% | — | 1,567 | 0 | 8 |
| 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 2–14 | 12.5% | — | 1,454 | 0 | 8 |
| 42 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 12–15 | 44.4% | — | 1,575 | 0 | 8 |
| 43 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | — | 1,597 | 0 | 8 |
| 44 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,574 | 0 | 8 |
| 46 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,564 | 0 | 8 |