H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Elena Dementieva vs Julia Vakulenko H2H: 1-0
Elena Dementieva holds a 1–0 lead over Julia Vakulenko in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Elena Dementieva leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Elena Dementieva won the 2006 Berlin third round 6-2 3-0 RET.
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 44
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
UKR
Age 43
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2006* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Elena Dementieva | 6-2 3-0 (ret.) | Julia Vakulenko | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elena Dementieva | #10 | #3 | 8,286 | 2,108 | 472 | 243 | 66.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 15 |
| Julia Vakulenko | #979 | #31 | 916 | 1,730 | 51 | 76 | 40.2% | 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 | Elena Dementieva | Julia Vakulenko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #349 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1999 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #62 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #132 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #11 | 1,859 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #132 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #15 | 1,833 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #94 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #19 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #130 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 47–25 | 65.3% | #8 | 1,966 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,986 | 0 | 4 | 2006 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #120 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #8 | 1,925 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #32 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #8 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 | 2008 | 3–12 | 20.0% | #354 | 1,569 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 41–18 | 69.5% | #11 | 1,964 | 0 | 8 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #156 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2008 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,014 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2009 | 55–18 | 75.3% | #5 | 1,981 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2010 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #9 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |