H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:32 UTC
Elina Svitolina vs Ekaterina Makarova H2H: 0-4
Ekaterina Makarova holds a 4–0 lead over Elina Svitolina in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Ekaterina Makarova leads 4–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ekaterina Makarova won the 2016 Miami fourth round 6-1 6-4.
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
RUS
Age 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2016* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-1 6-4 | Elina Svitolina | Match data |
| Sep 6, 2015* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-3 7-5 | Elina Svitolina | Match data |
| Mar 26, 2015* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-0 6-4 | Elina Svitolina | Match data |
| Jan 15, 2015* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 7-6(1) 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 |
| Ekaterina Makarova | #1,000 | #8 | 3,620 | 1,940 | 248 | 222 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
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 | Ekaterina Makarova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2013 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #45 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2014 | 36–24 | 60.0% | #28 | 1,805 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2015 | 40–24 | 62.5% | #19 | 1,788 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2016 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #14 | 1,828 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2017 | 50–15 | 76.9% | #6 | 1,942 | 0 | 9 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2018 | 44–15 | 74.6% | #4 | 1,983 | 0 | 13 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2019 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,963 | 0 | 13 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2020 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2021 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,900 | 0 | 16 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2022 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #240 | 1,765 | 0 | 16 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2023 | 18–9 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,886 | 0 | 17 | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2024 | 27–16 | 62.8% | #23 | 1,906 | 0 | 17 | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2025 | 33–14 | 70.2% | #14 | 1,980 | 0 | 18 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2026 | 35–10 | 77.8% | #10 | 2,085 | 0 | 20 | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 |