H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Laura Siegemund vs Elena Vesnina H2H: 0-2
Elena Vesnina holds a 2–0 lead over Laura Siegemund in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Elena Vesnina leads 2–0 on clay. Most recently, Elena Vesnina won the 2018 Rome second round 7-6(5) 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
GER
Age 38
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2021 | Rome | WTA 1000 | Q1 | Clay | Laura Siegemund | 6-3 6-3 | Elena Vesnina | Match data |
| May 16, 2018* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Elena Vesnina | 7-6(5) 6-2 | Laura Siegemund | Match data |
| Apr 9, 2016* | Charleston | WTA 500 | QF | Clay | Elena Vesnina | 7-5 6-4 | Laura Siegemund | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laura Siegemund | #87 | #27 | 1,630 | 1,828 | 143 | 152 | 48.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Elena Vesnina | #573 | #13 | 3,320 | 1,858 | 262 | 260 | 50.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
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 | Laura Siegemund | Elena Vesnina | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #259 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #106 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #47 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #54 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #79 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #220 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #23 | 1,767 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #52 | 1,720 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #57 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #68 | 1,701 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #25 | 1,801 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2015 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #98 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 16–17 | 48.5% | #64 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2016 | 27–17 | 61.4% | #31 | 1,735 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #115 | 1,609 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2017 | 14–12 | 53.8% | #69 | 1,792 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #16 | 1,778 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #113 | 1,691 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 25–26 | 49.0% | #18 | 1,691 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2019 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #75 | 1,666 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #137 | 1,679 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | 2020 | 11–9 | 55.0% | #51 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2021 | 8–13 | 38.1% | #125 | 1,727 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2022 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #177 | 1,652 | 0 | 2 | 2021 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #310 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |
| 35 | 2023 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #86 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2024 | 17–16 | 51.5% | #80 | 1,738 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2025 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #46 | 1,803 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2026 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #87 | 1,748 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |