H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Elina Svitolina vs Agnieszka Radwanska H2H: 0-4
Agnieszka Radwanska holds a 4–0 lead over Elina Svitolina in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Agnieszka Radwanska leads 4–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Agnieszka Radwanska won the 2016 Beijing semifinal 7-6(3) 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.
UKR
Age 31
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
4
4 main draw meetings
POL
Age 37
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2016 | Beijing | WTA 1000 | SF | Hard | Agnieszka Radwanska | 7-6(3) 6-3 | Elina Svitolina | Match data |
| Aug 27, 2016* | New Haven | WTA 500 | F | Hard | Agnieszka Radwanska | 6-1 7-6(3) | Elina Svitolina | Match data |
| Sep 25, 2015* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Agnieszka Radwanska | 6-4 6-1 | Elina Svitolina | Match data |
| Mar 21, 2014* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Agnieszka Radwanska | 7-6(5) 5-7 6-2 | Elina Svitolina | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elina Svitolina | #10 | #3 | 6,085 | 2,143 | 429 | 227 | 65.4% | 0 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 20 |
| Agnieszka Radwanska | #74 | #2 | 8,530 | 2,081 | 506 | 237 | 68.1% | 0 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 20 |
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 | Elina Svitolina | Agnieszka Radwanska | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #131 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2013 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #45 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #26 | 1,808 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2014 | 36–24 | 60.0% | #28 | 1,805 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 51–19 | 72.9% | #10 | 1,926 | 0 | 4 |
| 20 | 2015 | 40–24 | 62.5% | #19 | 1,788 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 44–23 | 65.7% | #10 | 1,910 | 0 | 4 |
| 21 | 2016 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #14 | 1,828 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 32–18 | 64.0% | #14 | 1,860 | 0 | 4 |
| 22 | 2017 | 50–15 | 76.9% | #6 | 1,942 | 0 | 9 | 2011 | 46–18 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,979 | 0 | 7 |
| 23 | 2018 | 44–15 | 74.6% | #4 | 1,983 | 0 | 13 | 2012 | 59–19 | 75.6% | #4 | 1,994 | 0 | 10 |
| 24 | 2019 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,963 | 0 | 13 | 2013 | 56–20 | 73.7% | #5 | 1,957 | 0 | 13 |
| 25 | 2020 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 | 2014 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #6 | 1,872 | 0 | 14 |
| 26 | 2021 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,900 | 0 | 16 | 2015 | 50–22 | 69.4% | #5 | 1,957 | 0 | 17 |
| 27 | 2022 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #240 | 1,765 | 0 | 16 | 2016 | 51–18 | 73.9% | #3 | 1,942 | 0 | 20 |
| 28 | 2023 | 18–9 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,886 | 0 | 17 | 2017 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #28 | 1,812 | 0 | 20 |
| 29 | 2024 | 27–16 | 62.8% | #23 | 1,906 | 0 | 17 | 2018 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #74 | 1,727 | 0 | 20 |
| 30 | 2025 | 33–14 | 70.2% | #14 | 1,980 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2026 | 35–10 | 77.8% | #10 | 2,085 | 0 | 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |