H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Kaia Kanepi vs Jelena Kostanic Tosic H2H: 0-1
Jelena Kostanic Tosic holds a 1–0 lead over Kaia Kanepi in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jelena Kostanic Tosic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jelena Kostanic Tosic won the 2006 Bangalore fourth round 6-1 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.
EST
Age 41
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 45
Left-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2006* | Bangalore | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | 6-1 6-4 | Kaia Kanepi | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaia Kanepi | #1,322 | #15 | 2,760 | 1,912 | 261 | 235 | 52.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Jelena Kostanic Tosic | #937 | #32 | 900 | 1,726 | 112 | 151 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Kaia Kanepi | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #200 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #240 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2002 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #285 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #97 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #114 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #131 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2005 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #98 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #70 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2006 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #78 | 1,610 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2007 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #75 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #35 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2008 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #27 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 11–21 | 34.4% | #87 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2009 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #58 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #51 | 1,577 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2010 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #22 | 1,839 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #103 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2011 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #34 | 1,816 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #114 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2012 | 25–9 | 73.5% | #19 | 1,868 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2013 | 21–10 | 67.7% | #30 | 1,841 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #830 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2014 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #51 | 1,718 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2015 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #122 | 1,649 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,655 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2017 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #100 | 1,725 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2018 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #61 | 1,776 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 9–10 | 47.4% | #101 | 1,748 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2020 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #93 | 1,719 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #73 | 1,703 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2022 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #32 | 1,801 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2023 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #168 | 1,607 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |