H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Monica Niculescu vs Rebecca Peterson H2H: 1-0
Monica Niculescu holds a 1–0 lead over Rebecca Peterson in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Monica Niculescu leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Monica Niculescu won the 2015 Guangzhou fourth round 6-3 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.
ROU
Age 38
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 30
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 25, 2015* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Monica Niculescu | 6-3 6-2 | Rebecca Peterson | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monica Niculescu | #958 | #28 | 1,960 | 1,807 | 176 | 213 | 45.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Rebecca Peterson | #573 | #43 | 1,332 | 1,863 | 79 | 93 | 45.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Monica Niculescu | Rebecca Peterson | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #263 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #230 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #152 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #48 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #146 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 10–22 | 31.2% | #103 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #174 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #82 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #63 | 1,692 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 21–15 | 58.3% | #30 | 1,755 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #44 | 1,863 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2012 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #58 | 1,639 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #55 | 1,696 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2013 | 22–21 | 51.2% | #59 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #88 | 1,698 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2014 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #46 | 1,687 | 0 | 2 | 2022 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #119 | 1,659 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2015 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,677 | 0 | 2 | 2023 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #127 | 1,647 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2016 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #38 | 1,782 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2017 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #77 | 1,618 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2018 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #99 | 1,588 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2019 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #118 | 1,627 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #144 | 1,579 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2021 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #274 | 1,514 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |