H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Kristina Brandi H2H: 0-2
Kristina Brandi holds a 2–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kristina Brandi leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kristina Brandi won the 2005 Prague third round 6-7(6) 7-5 6-1.
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
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
PUR
Age 49
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2005* | Prague | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Kristina Brandi | 6-7(6) 7-5 6-1 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Jan 7, 1999* | Auckland | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Kristina Brandi | 6-1 6-2 | 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 |
| Kristina Brandi | #917 | #27 | 983 | 1,722 | 103 | 150 | 40.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Kristina Brandi | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #191 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #156 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #88 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #71 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #55 | 1,605 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 25–25 | 50.0% | #27 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #77 | 1,622 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #207 | 1,548 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #75 | 1,535 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #47 | 1,611 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 8–19 | 29.6% | #89 | 1,517 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #158 | 1,426 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #199 | 1,414 | 0 | 1 |