H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:30 UTC
Petra Martic vs Anett Kontaveit H2H: 2-1
Petra Martic holds a 2–1 lead over Anett Kontaveit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Petra Martic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Petra Martic won the 2022 Rome third round 6-2 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.
CRO
Age 35
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2022* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Petra Martic | 6-2 6-3 | Anett Kontaveit | Match data |
| Aug 8, 2020* | Palermo | WTA 250 | SF | Clay | Anett Kontaveit | 6-2 6-4 | Petra Martic | Match data |
| Feb 21, 2020* | Dubai | WTA 1000 | QF | Hard | Petra Martic | 7-6(4) 6-1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petra Martic | #349 | #14 | 2,850 | 1,942 | 212 | 214 | 49.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 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 | Petra Martic | Anett Kontaveit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #330 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2008 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #215 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #249 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2009 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #82 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #159 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2010 | 5–14 | 26.3% | #142 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #91 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2011 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #50 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #112 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2012 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #59 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #34 | 1,706 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2013 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #107 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 33–23 | 58.9% | #20 | 1,832 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2014 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #186 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2015 | 0–8 | 0.0% | #148 | 1,435 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 21–11 | 65.6% | #23 | 1,912 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2016 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #262 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #7 | 2,049 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2017 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #89 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 | 2022 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #17 | 1,882 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2018 | 26–17 | 60.5% | #32 | 1,795 | 0 | 0 | 2023 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #81 | 1,776 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 2019 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #15 | 1,903 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2020 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #18 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2021 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #54 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2022 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #38 | 1,794 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2023 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #40 | 1,808 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2024 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #122 | 1,649 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2025 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #209 | 1,611 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |