H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:30 UTC
Nadia Podoroska vs Timea Babos H2H: 1-1
Nadia Podoroska and Timea Babos are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Nadia Podoroska leads 1–0 on clay, while Timea Babos leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Nadia Podoroska won the 2021 Belgrade third round 6-2 4-6 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.
ARG
Age 29
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
HUN
Age 33
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2021* | Belgrade | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Nadia Podoroska | 6-2 4-6 6-3 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Aug 2, 2016* | Florianopolis | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Timea Babos | 6-7(3) 6-3 6-2 | Nadia Podoroska | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nadia Podoroska | #471 | #36 | 1,787 | 1,762 | 53 | 78 | 40.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Timea Babos | #453 | #25 | 1,675 | 1,768 | 123 | 177 | 41.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | Nadia Podoroska | Timea Babos | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2016 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #194 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2017 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #311 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #304 | 1,581 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2020 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #47 | 1,737 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2021 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #84 | 1,687 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2022 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,635 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2023 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #67 | 1,667 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2024 | 10–24 | 29.4% | #100 | 1,651 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2025 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #471 | 1,648 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2026 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #471 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 |