H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Jelena Jankovic vs Rebecca Peterson H2H: 1-0
Jelena Jankovic holds a 1–0 lead over Rebecca Peterson in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jelena Jankovic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jelena Jankovic won the 2016 Guangzhou fourth round 6-1 1-0 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SRB
Age 41
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 30
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2016* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Jelena Jankovic | 6-1 1-0 (ret.) | Rebecca Peterson | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jelena Jankovic | #970 | #1 | 9,200 | 2,132 | 547 | 332 | 62.2% | 0 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 15 |
| Rebecca Peterson | #573 | #43 | 1,332 | 1,863 | 79 | 93 | 45.9% | 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 | Jelena Jankovic | Rebecca Peterson | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2001 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #364 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2002 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #196 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #263 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2003 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #85 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #230 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2004 | 27–25 | 51.9% | #28 | 1,754 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2005 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #22 | 1,732 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #146 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2006 | 45–28 | 61.6% | #12 | 1,915 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #174 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 73–26 | 73.7% | #3 | 1,966 | 0 | 5 | 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,692 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 63–18 | 77.8% | #1 | 2,087 | 0 | 9 | 2019 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #44 | 1,863 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2009 | 42–19 | 68.9% | #8 | 1,948 | 0 | 11 | 2020 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #55 | 1,696 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2010 | 35–22 | 61.4% | #8 | 1,794 | 0 | 12 | 2021 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #88 | 1,698 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2011 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,804 | 0 | 12 | 2022 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #119 | 1,659 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2012 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #22 | 1,737 | 0 | 12 | 2023 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #127 | 1,647 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2013 | 46–21 | 68.7% | #8 | 1,918 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2014 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #15 | 1,795 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2015 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #21 | 1,851 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2016 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #54 | 1,738 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2017 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #158 | 1,576 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |