H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Gisela Dulko vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-2
Emilie Loit holds a 2–1 lead over Gisela Dulko in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Emilie Loit leads 2–1 on clay. Most recently, Gisela Dulko won the 2008 Fes fourth round 6-3 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.
ARG
Age 41
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2008* | Fes | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Gisela Dulko | 6-3 6-2 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Mar 3, 2007* | Acapulco | WTA 500 | QF | Clay | Emilie Loit | 5-7 6-4 6-1 | Gisela Dulko | Match data |
| Mar 2, 2006* | Acapulco | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 7-6(2) 6-2 | Gisela Dulko | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gisela Dulko | #305 | #26 | 1,695 | 1,798 | 192 | 179 | 51.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | Gisela Dulko | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2002 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #154 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2003 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #125 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2004 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #33 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2005 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #26 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2006 | 16–23 | 41.0% | #59 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #37 | 1,702 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #51 | 1,658 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #36 | 1,734 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #48 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2011 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #67 | 1,650 | 0 | 4 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2012 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #305 | 1,604 | 0 | 4 | 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 |