H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Jelena Jankovic vs Venus Williams H2H: 7-7
Jelena Jankovic and Venus Williams are tied 7–7 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 14 main-draw meetings, Venus Williams leads 5–2 on hard courts, while Jelena Jankovic leads 4–2 on clay. Most recently, Venus Williams won the 2017 Indian Wells second round 1-6 7-6(5) 6-1.
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
7
–
7
14 main draw meetings
USA
Age 46
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2017* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Venus Williams | 1-6 7-6(5) 6-1 | Jelena Jankovic | Match data |
| Oct 17, 2015* | Hong Kong | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Jelena Jankovic | 6-4 7-5 | Venus Williams | Match data |
| Apr 5, 2012* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Venus Williams | 7-5 6-0 | Jelena Jankovic | Match data |
| May 8, 2010* | Rome | WTA 1000 | QF | Clay | Jelena Jankovic | 6-0 6-1 | Venus Williams | Match data |
| Nov 1, 2009* | WTA Tour Championships | WTA Finals | SF | Hard | Venus Williams | 5-7 6-3 6-4 | Jelena Jankovic | Match data |
| Nov 9, 2008* | WTA Tour Championships | WTA Finals | SF | Hard | Venus Williams | 6-2 2-6 6-3 | Jelena Jankovic | Match data |
| Oct 4, 2008* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | SF | Hard | Jelena Jankovic | 6-7(8) 7-5 6-2 | Venus Williams | Match data |
| May 17, 2008* | Rome | WTA 1000 | QF | Clay | Jelena Jankovic | 5-7 6-2 6-3 | Venus Williams | Match data |
| Sep 6, 2007* | US Open | Grand Slam | QF | Hard | Venus Williams | 4-6 6-1 7-6(4) | Jelena Jankovic | Match data |
| Jun 2, 2007* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Jelena Jankovic | 6-4 4-6 6-1 | Venus Williams | Match data |
| Apr 14, 2007* | Charleston | WTA 1000 | SF | Clay | Jelena Jankovic | 3-6 6-3 7-6(5) | Venus Williams | Match data |
| Jul 1, 2006* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R32 | Grass | Jelena Jankovic | 7-6(8) 4-6 6-4 | Venus Williams | Match data |
| May 20, 2006* | Rome | WTA 1000 | QF | Clay | Venus Williams | 5-7 6-4 6-1 | Jelena Jankovic | Match data |
| Jul 30, 2005* | Stanford | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Venus Williams | 6-3 6-3 | Jelena Jankovic | 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 |
| Venus Williams | #467 | #1 | 7,452 | 2,362 | 768 | 288 | 72.7% | 7 | 9 | 1 | 20 | 10 | 47 |
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 | Venus Williams | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #205 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 2001 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #364 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #216 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2002 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #196 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 20–13 | 60.6% | #22 | 1,851 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2003 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #85 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 50–13 | 79.4% | #5 | 2,094 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | 2004 | 27–25 | 51.9% | #28 | 1,754 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 57–11 | 83.8% | #3 | 2,258 | 0 | 8 |
| 20 | 2005 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #22 | 1,732 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 35–4 | 89.7% | #3 | 2,321 | 2 | 13 |
| 21 | 2006 | 45–28 | 61.6% | #12 | 1,915 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 46–6 | 88.5% | #3 | 2,338 | 4 | 19 |
| 22 | 2007 | 73–26 | 73.7% | #3 | 1,966 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 63–9 | 87.5% | #2 | 2,297 | 4 | 26 |
| 23 | 2008 | 63–18 | 77.8% | #1 | 2,087 | 0 | 9 | 2003 | 24–5 | 82.8% | #11 | 2,257 | 4 | 27 |
| 24 | 2009 | 42–19 | 68.9% | #8 | 1,948 | 0 | 11 | 2004 | 40–13 | 75.5% | #9 | 2,072 | 4 | 29 |
| 25 | 2010 | 35–22 | 61.4% | #8 | 1,794 | 0 | 12 | 2005 | 34–10 | 77.3% | #10 | 2,085 | 5 | 31 |
| 26 | 2011 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,804 | 0 | 12 | 2006 | 13–6 | 68.4% | #46 | 2,007 | 5 | 31 |
| 27 | 2012 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #22 | 1,737 | 0 | 12 | 2007 | 46–10 | 82.1% | #8 | 2,048 | 6 | 34 |
| 28 | 2013 | 46–21 | 68.7% | #8 | 1,918 | 0 | 13 | 2008 | 37–10 | 78.7% | #6 | 2,133 | 7 | 37 |
| 29 | 2014 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #15 | 1,795 | 0 | 13 | 2009 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #6 | 1,981 | 7 | 39 |
| 30 | 2015 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #21 | 1,851 | 0 | 15 | 2010 | 38–7 | 84.4% | #5 | 2,057 | 7 | 41 |
| 31 | 2016 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #54 | 1,738 | 0 | 15 | 2011 | 8–4 | 66.7% | #102 | 1,994 | 7 | 41 |
| 32 | 2017 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #158 | 1,576 | 0 | 15 | 2012 | 22–8 | 73.3% | #24 | 2,007 | 7 | 42 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #47 | 1,889 | 7 | 42 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 33–15 | 68.8% | #18 | 1,874 | 7 | 43 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 39–14 | 73.6% | #7 | 1,957 | 7 | 46 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,830 | 7 | 47 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #5 | 1,935 | 7 | 47 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #39 | 1,867 | 7 | 47 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 20–15 | 57.1% | #52 | 1,827 | 7 | 47 |
| 40 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #79 | 1,717 | 7 | 47 |
| 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #318 | 1,649 | 7 | 47 |
| 42 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #1000 | 1,603 | 7 | 47 |
| 43 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #412 | 1,594 | 7 | 47 |