H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Ekaterina Makarova vs Naomi Broady H2H: 1-0
Ekaterina Makarova holds a 1–0 lead over Naomi Broady in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ekaterina Makarova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ekaterina Makarova won the 2015 Washington fourth round 6-4 7-6(2).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RUS
Age 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 36
Right-Handed
189 cm / 6'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2015* | Washington | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-4 7-6(2) | Naomi Broady | 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 |
| Naomi Broady | #1,209 | #76 | 875 | 1,604 | 24 | 41 | 36.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Naomi Broady | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #298 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #287 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #196 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #287 | 1,463 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #170 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #121 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #91 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #117 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #250 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |