H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Sania Mirza vs Vania King H2H: 1-0
Sania Mirza holds a 1–0 lead over Vania King in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Sania Mirza leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Sania Mirza won the 2011 Charleston third round 6-7(6) 6-4 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
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2011* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Sania Mirza | 6-7(6) 6-4 6-2 | Vania King | 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 |
| Vania King | #824 | #50 | 1,225 | 1,760 | 128 | 160 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
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 | Vania King | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #169 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2005 | 27–16 | 62.8% | #34 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #65 | 1,651 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2007 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #31 | 1,750 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2008 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #101 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2009 | 17–13 | 56.7% | #57 | 1,724 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2010 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,607 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2011 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #104 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2012 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #278 | 1,541 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |