H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Ekaterina Makarova vs Stefanie Voegele H2H: 0-1
Stefanie Voegele holds a 1–0 lead over Ekaterina Makarova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Stefanie Voegele leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Stefanie Voegele won the 2009 Birmingham third round 6-3 3-6 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
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
SUI
Age 36
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2009* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Stefanie Voegele | 6-3 3-6 6-2 | 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 |
| Stefanie Voegele | #1,075 | #42 | 1,255 | 1,712 | 100 | 175 | 36.4% | 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 | Stefanie Voegele | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #124 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #75 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #135 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #138 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #92 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #50 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #79 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 7–17 | 29.2% | #119 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #114 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #169 | 1,650 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #83 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #119 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #116 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 | 2021 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #147 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #260 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |