H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:33 UTC
Jasmine Paolini vs Laura Siegemund H2H: 3-1
Jasmine Paolini holds a 3–1 lead over Laura Siegemund in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Jasmine Paolini leads 2–1 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jasmine Paolini won the 2026 Madrid second round 3-6 6-2 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ITA
Age 30
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
GER
Age 38
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 2026 | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Jasmine Paolini | 3-6 6-2 6-4 | Laura Siegemund | Match data |
| Oct 14, 2023* | Zhengzhou | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Jasmine Paolini | 6-0 7-5 | Laura Siegemund | Match data |
| Jul 25, 2019* | Palermo | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Jasmine Paolini | 6-1 6-4 | Laura Siegemund | Match data |
| Jul 19, 2018* | Bucharest | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Laura Siegemund | 6-4 6-0 | Jasmine Paolini | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jasmine Paolini | #15 | #4 | 5,865 | 2,058 | 172 | 135 | 56.0% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Laura Siegemund | #87 | #27 | 1,630 | 1,828 | 143 | 152 | 48.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 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 | Jasmine Paolini | Laura Siegemund | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 21 | 2017 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #140 | 1,453 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2018 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #192 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #220 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2019 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #96 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2020 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #96 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2021 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #53 | 1,773 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2022 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #62 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2023 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #30 | 1,857 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #98 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2024 | 38–18 | 67.9% | #4 | 1,982 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 27–17 | 61.4% | #31 | 1,735 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2025 | 40–20 | 66.7% | #8 | 2,005 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 14–12 | 53.8% | #69 | 1,792 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2026 | 14–12 | 53.8% | #15 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #113 | 1,691 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #75 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 11–9 | 55.0% | #51 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #125 | 1,727 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #177 | 1,652 | 0 | 2 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #86 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #80 | 1,738 | 0 | 2 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #46 | 1,803 | 0 | 2 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2026 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #87 | 1,748 | 0 | 2 |