H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Elena Vesnina vs Jana Cepelova H2H: 2-2
Elena Vesnina and Jana Cepelova are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Jana Cepelova leads 2–1 on clay, while Elena Vesnina leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Elena Vesnina won the 2016 Miami first round 7-5 6-3.
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 39
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
SVK
Age 33
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2016* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Elena Vesnina | 7-5 6-3 | Jana Cepelova | Match data |
| Apr 30, 2015* | Prague | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Elena Vesnina | 6-2 6-1 | Jana Cepelova | Match data |
| Apr 8, 2015* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Jana Cepelova | 6-2 6-7(5) 7-6(4) | Elena Vesnina | Match data |
| Apr 4, 2014* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Jana Cepelova | 7-6(4) 3-6 6-3 | Elena Vesnina | 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 Vesnina | #573 | #13 | 3,320 | 1,858 | 262 | 260 | 50.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Jana Cepelova | #894 | #50 | 1,074 | 1,685 | 55 | 91 | 37.7% | 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 Vesnina | Jana Cepelova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #259 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #106 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #201 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #47 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #111 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #54 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #76 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #79 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 18–19 | 48.6% | #56 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #23 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #147 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #100 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #57 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 8–20 | 28.6% | #108 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #188 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2013 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #158 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2014 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #64 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2015 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #115 | 1,609 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2016 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #16 | 1,778 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2017 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #18 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #137 | 1,679 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2021 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #310 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |