H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Jana Kandarr H2H: 1-1
Emilie Loit and Jana Kandarr are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay, while Jana Kandarr leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2002 Acapulco fourth round 3-6 6-4 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.
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
GER
Age 49
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2002* | Acapulco | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 3-6 6-4 6-3 | Jana Kandarr | Match data |
| Jan 20, 2000* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Jana Kandarr | 1-6 7-5 6-3 | Emilie Loit | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Jana Kandarr | #459 | #43 | 687 | 1,641 | 66 | 119 | 35.7% | 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 | Emilie Loit | Jana Kandarr | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #313 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #81 | 1,560 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #90 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #85 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #90 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #157 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #61 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #131 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #451 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |