H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:32 UTC
Jil Teichmann vs Petra Kvitova H2H: 2-2
Jil Teichmann and Petra Kvitova are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Petra Kvitova leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Jil Teichmann leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Petra Kvitova won the 2022 Cincinnati second round 6-7(2) 7-6(6) 6-3.
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
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 36
Left-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2022* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Petra Kvitova | 6-7(2) 7-6(6) 6-3 | Jil Teichmann | Match data |
| Apr 30, 2022* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Jil Teichmann | 6-3 7-5 | Petra Kvitova | Match data |
| Sep 25, 2021* | Ostrava | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Petra Kvitova | 6-4 6-4 | Jil Teichmann | Match data |
| Mar 10, 2021* | Dubai | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Jil Teichmann | 6-2 3-4 (ret.) | Petra Kvitova | 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 |
| Petra Kvitova | #450 | #2 | 7,690 | 2,073 | 501 | 258 | 66.0% | 2 | 10 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 31 |
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 | Petra Kvitova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #150 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2016 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #209 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #50 | 1,607 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #139 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #61 | 1,700 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2018 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #148 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #34 | 1,699 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2019 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #69 | 1,632 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 50–11 | 82.0% | #2 | 2,058 | 1 | 7 |
| 22 | 2020 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #57 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #8 | 1,961 | 1 | 9 |
| 23 | 2021 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #37 | 1,766 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 49–22 | 69.0% | #6 | 1,966 | 1 | 11 |
| 24 | 2022 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #35 | 1,690 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 41–17 | 70.7% | #4 | 1,989 | 2 | 14 |
| 25 | 2023 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #147 | 1,613 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #6 | 1,907 | 2 | 17 |
| 26 | 2024 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #135 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 41–19 | 68.3% | #11 | 1,966 | 2 | 19 |
| 27 | 2025 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #123 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 18–10 | 64.3% | #29 | 1,894 | 2 | 20 |
| 28 | 2026 | 6–2 | 75.0% | #119 | 1,709 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 42–17 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,887 | 2 | 25 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 33–16 | 67.3% | #7 | 1,897 | 2 | 27 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 20–7 | 74.1% | #8 | 1,947 | 2 | 27 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #17 | 1,881 | 2 | 28 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 28–19 | 59.6% | #16 | 1,920 | 2 | 29 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 29–13 | 69.0% | #14 | 1,931 | 2 | 31 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 1–8 | 11.1% | — | 1,773 | 2 | 31 |