H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC
Jil Teichmann vs Anett Kontaveit H2H: 1-3
Anett Kontaveit holds a 3–1 lead over Jil Teichmann in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Anett Kontaveit leads 3–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Jil Teichmann won the 2022 Toronto third round 6-4 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.
SUI
Age 29
Left-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
EST
Age 30
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 2022* | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Jil Teichmann | 6-4 6-4 | Anett Kontaveit | Match data |
| Feb 10, 2022* | St. Petersburg | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Anett Kontaveit | 6-3 1-6 6-3 | Jil Teichmann | Match data |
| Sep 2, 2021* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Anett Kontaveit | 6-4 6-1 | Jil Teichmann | Match data |
| Aug 25, 2020* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Anett Kontaveit | 6-3 6-4 | Jil Teichmann | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jil Teichmann | #119 | #21 | 2,101 | 1,876 | 98 | 107 | 47.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Anett Kontaveit | #81 | #2 | 4,721 | 2,109 | 205 | 138 | 59.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
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 | Jil Teichmann | Anett Kontaveit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #249 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2016 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #209 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #159 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #139 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #91 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2018 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #148 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #112 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2019 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #69 | 1,632 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #34 | 1,706 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2020 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #57 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 33–23 | 58.9% | #20 | 1,832 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2021 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #37 | 1,766 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2022 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #35 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 | 2020 | 21–11 | 65.6% | #23 | 1,912 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2023 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #147 | 1,613 | 0 | 2 | 2021 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #7 | 2,049 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2024 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #135 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 | 2022 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #17 | 1,882 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2025 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #123 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2023 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #81 | 1,776 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 2026 | 6–2 | 75.0% | #119 | 1,709 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |