H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Ekaterina Makarova vs Kiki Bertens H2H: 0-2
Kiki Bertens holds a 2–0 lead over Ekaterina Makarova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kiki Bertens leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Kiki Bertens won the 2017 Rome fourth round 7-6(3) 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RUS
Age 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
NED
Age 34
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2017* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Kiki Bertens | 7-6(3) 6-1 | Ekaterina Makarova | Match data |
| May 8, 2017 | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Kiki Bertens | 6-1 7-6(4) | Ekaterina Makarova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ekaterina Makarova | #1,000 | #8 | 3,620 | 1,940 | 248 | 222 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Kiki Bertens | #25 | #4 | 5,430 | 2,015 | 214 | 168 | 56.0% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 11 |
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 | Ekaterina Makarova | Kiki Bertens | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #63 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #87 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #68 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 7–17 | 29.2% | #104 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #22 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,684 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #9 | 1,912 | 0 | 8 |
| 27 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 54–25 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,897 | 0 | 10 |
| 28 | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 | 2020 | 13–6 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,883 | 0 | 11 |
| 29 | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 | 2021 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #25 | 1,749 | 0 | 11 |
| 30 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |