H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Eugenie Bouchard vs Shahar Peer H2H: 4-0
Eugenie Bouchard holds a 4–0 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Eugenie Bouchard leads 3–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Eugenie Bouchard won the 2014 Roland Garros first round 6-0 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CAN
Age 32
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 2014* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Eugenie Bouchard | 6-0 6-2 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Feb 27, 2014* | Acapulco | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Eugenie Bouchard | 6-2 6-2 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Mar 19, 2013* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Eugenie Bouchard | 4-6 6-1 6-4 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Aug 8, 2012* | Montreal | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Eugenie Bouchard | 3-6 6-2 7-5 | Shahar Peer | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eugenie Bouchard | #1,002 | #5 | 4,793 | 1,926 | 156 | 144 | 52.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Shahar Peer | #1,185 | #11 | 3,410 | 1,966 | 268 | 204 | 56.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
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 | Eugenie Bouchard | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2011 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #305 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2012 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #147 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2013 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #32 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2014 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #7 | 1,834 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2015 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #49 | 1,678 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2016 | 28–22 | 56.0% | #46 | 1,699 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2017 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #81 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2018 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #87 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2019 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #215 | 1,616 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2020 | 10–4 | 71.4% | #141 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2021 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #253 | 1,703 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2022 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #326 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2023 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #287 | 1,635 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2025 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #1002 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |