H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Lesia Tsurenko vs Anett Kontaveit H2H: 2-1
Lesia Tsurenko holds a 2–1 lead over Anett Kontaveit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Lesia Tsurenko leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Anett Kontaveit leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Lesia Tsurenko won the 2019 Brisbane quarterfinal 7-5 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.
UKR
Age 37
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
EST
Age 30
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2019 | Brisbane | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Lesia Tsurenko | 7-5 6-3 | Anett Kontaveit | Match data |
| Jun 17, 2017* | S-Hertogenbosch | WTA 250 | SF | Grass | Anett Kontaveit | 6-3 6-7(0) 6-2 | Lesia Tsurenko | Match data |
| Sep 24, 2016* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Lesia Tsurenko | 6-4 6-2 | Anett Kontaveit | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesia Tsurenko | #370 | #23 | 2,030 | 1,889 | 180 | 200 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 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 | Lesia Tsurenko | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #159 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #91 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #284 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #112 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #155 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #34 | 1,706 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #113 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 33–23 | 58.9% | #20 | 1,832 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #116 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2013 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #68 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 21–11 | 65.6% | #23 | 1,912 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2014 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #92 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #7 | 2,049 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2015 | 22–17 | 56.4% | #33 | 1,738 | 0 | 1 | 2022 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #17 | 1,882 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2016 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #57 | 1,728 | 0 | 2 | 2023 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #81 | 1,776 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 2017 | 22–24 | 47.8% | #42 | 1,699 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2018 | 26–18 | 59.1% | #27 | 1,814 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2019 | 14–14 | 50.0% | #73 | 1,734 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2020 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #146 | 1,746 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2021 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #118 | 1,738 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2022 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #137 | 1,745 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2023 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #31 | 1,866 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2024 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #115 | 1,693 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |