H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Sania Mirza vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-1
Sania Mirza and Emilie Loit are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay, while Sania Mirza leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sania Mirza won the 2008 Stockholm third 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.
IND
Age 39
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2008* | Stockholm | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Sania Mirza | 6-3 6-2 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Apr 8, 2004* | Casablanca | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 5-7 6-4 6-2 | Sania Mirza | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sania Mirza | #707 | #27 | 1,148 | 1,819 | 121 | 117 | 50.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 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 | Sania Mirza | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #462 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #169 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2005 | 27–16 | 62.8% | #34 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #65 | 1,651 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #31 | 1,750 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #101 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 17–13 | 56.7% | #57 | 1,724 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,607 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #104 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #278 | 1,541 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |