H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Irina-Camelia Begu vs Margarita Gasparyan H2H: 1-0
Irina-Camelia Begu holds a 1–0 lead over Margarita Gasparyan in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Irina-Camelia Begu leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Irina-Camelia Begu won the 2016 Rome second round 6-3 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ROU
Age 35
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 31
Right-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2016* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Irina-Camelia Begu | 6-3 6-0 | Margarita Gasparyan | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irina-Camelia Begu | #204 | #22 | 1,925 | 1,886 | 249 | 234 | 51.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Margarita Gasparyan | #1,358 | #41 | 1,213 | 1,773 | 50 | 57 | 46.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Irina-Camelia Begu | Margarita Gasparyan | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #214 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #234 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #220 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2011 | 16–11 | 59.3% | #40 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 10–6 | 62.5% | #61 | 1,617 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2012 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #52 | 1,729 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #117 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2013 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #131 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2014 | 14–15 | 48.3% | #41 | 1,617 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 11–5 | 68.8% | #92 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2015 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #31 | 1,711 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #104 | 1,685 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2016 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #29 | 1,711 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #125 | 1,606 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2017 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #43 | 1,667 | 0 | 4 | 2021 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,606 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2018 | 19–24 | 44.2% | #67 | 1,601 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2019 | 11–16 | 40.7% | #102 | 1,555 | 0 | 4 | 2023 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,528 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2020 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #78 | 1,710 | 0 | 4 | 2024 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1358 | 1,465 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2021 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #62 | 1,736 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2022 | 25–15 | 62.5% | #34 | 1,834 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2023 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #75 | 1,781 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2024 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #79 | 1,807 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2025 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #144 | 1,760 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2026 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #204 | 1,726 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |