H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:30 UTC
Sara Errani vs Kim Clijsters H2H: 0-1
Kim Clijsters holds a 1–0 lead over Sara Errani in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kim Clijsters leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kim Clijsters won the 2011 Indian Wells third round 6-3 2-6 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ITA
Age 39
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
BEL
Age 43
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 2011* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Kim Clijsters | 6-3 2-6 6-4 | Sara Errani | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sara Errani | #461 | #5 | 5,835 | 2,024 | 384 | 299 | 56.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 9 |
| Kim Clijsters | #1,140 | #1 | 8,895 | 2,275 | 463 | 127 | 78.5% | 4 | 7 | 3 | 21 | 6 | 41 |
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 | Sara Errani | Kim Clijsters | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 16–7 | 69.6% | #46 | 1,724 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #18 | 1,911 | 0 | 3 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 54–19 | 74.0% | #5 | 2,030 | 0 | 6 |
| 19 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,143 | 0 | 10 |
| 20 | 2007 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #69 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 86–12 | 87.8% | #2 | 2,260 | 0 | 19 |
| 21 | 2008 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #42 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 18–4 | 81.8% | #22 | 2,188 | 0 | 21 |
| 22 | 2009 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #47 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 66–9 | 88.0% | #2 | 2,215 | 1 | 30 |
| 23 | 2010 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #43 | 1,720 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 41–12 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,147 | 1 | 33 |
| 24 | 2011 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #45 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 14–4 | 77.8% | #5 | 2,113 | 1 | 34 |
| 25 | 2012 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2013 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #7 | 1,894 | 0 | 7 | 2009 | 13–3 | 81.2% | #18 | 2,128 | 2 | 35 |
| 27 | 2014 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #14 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 2010 | 39–7 | 84.8% | #3 | 2,182 | 3 | 40 |
| 28 | 2015 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #20 | 1,752 | 0 | 8 | 2011 | 21–7 | 75.0% | #13 | 2,049 | 4 | 41 |
| 29 | 2016 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,625 | 0 | 9 | 2012 | 17–6 | 73.9% | #20 | 1,989 | 4 | 41 |
| 30 | 2017 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #144 | 1,650 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2018 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #112 | 1,765 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2019 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #198 | 1,567 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2020 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2021 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #121 | 1,579 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2022 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #109 | 1,597 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2023 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #105 | 1,550 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2024 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #105 | 1,699 | 0 | 9 | 2020 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #1030 | 1,927 | 4 | 41 |
| 38 | 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #461 | 1,594 | 0 | 9 | 2021 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #1154 | 1,881 | 4 | 41 |