H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Jana Cepelova vs Annika Beck H2H: 1-4
Annika Beck holds a 4–1 lead over Jana Cepelova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Annika Beck leads 3–1 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Annika Beck won the 2017 Budapest third round 6-2 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.
SVK
Age 33
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
4
5 main draw meetings
GER
Age 32
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2017* | Budapest | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Annika Beck | 6-2 6-2 | Jana Cepelova | Match data |
| Oct 2, 2015* | Tashkent | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Annika Beck | 6-4 6-4 | Jana Cepelova | Match data |
| Jan 15, 2015* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Annika Beck | 6-7(4) 7-5 6-4 | Jana Cepelova | Match data |
| May 22, 2014* | Nuremberg | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Annika Beck | 6-2 6-3 | Jana Cepelova | Match data |
| Mar 1, 2013* | Florianopolis | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Jana Cepelova | 7-6(6) 6-4 | Annika Beck | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jana Cepelova | #894 | #50 | 1,074 | 1,685 | 55 | 91 | 37.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Annika Beck | #903 | #37 | 1,455 | 1,746 | 91 | 114 | 44.4% | 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 | Jana Cepelova | Annika Beck | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #201 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #78 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2012 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #111 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #58 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2013 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #76 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #53 | 1,664 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2014 | 18–19 | 48.6% | #56 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 20–20 | 50.0% | #58 | 1,650 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2015 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #147 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 21–26 | 44.7% | #51 | 1,670 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2016 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #100 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #178 | 1,510 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2017 | 8–20 | 28.6% | #108 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2018 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #188 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2019 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #158 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |