H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Sara Errani vs Martina Hingis H2H: 0-1
Martina Hingis holds a 1–0 lead over Sara Errani in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Martina Hingis leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Martina Hingis won the 2006 Rome second round 6-0 6-1.
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
SUI
Age 45
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2006* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Martina Hingis | 6-0 6-1 | 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 |
| Martina Hingis | #19 | #1 | 6,976 | 2,385 | 515 | 126 | 80.3% | 5 | 18 | 2 | 10 | 8 | 43 |
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 | Martina Hingis | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #87 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 18–12 | 60.0% | #16 | 1,826 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,160 | 0 | 2 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 72–5 | 93.5% | #1 | 2,321 | 3 | 14 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 60–12 | 83.3% | #2 | 2,264 | 4 | 19 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 70–12 | 85.4% | #1 | 2,285 | 5 | 26 |
| 19 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 78–10 | 88.6% | #1 | 2,314 | 5 | 35 |
| 20 | 2007 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #69 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 60–15 | 80.0% | #4 | 2,123 | 5 | 38 |
| 21 | 2008 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #42 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 34–10 | 77.3% | #10 | 2,050 | 5 | 40 |
| 22 | 2009 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #47 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2010 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #43 | 1,720 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 2011 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #45 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 2,020 | 5 | 40 |
| 25 | 2012 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 2006 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #7 | 2,013 | 5 | 42 |
| 26 | 2013 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #7 | 1,894 | 0 | 7 | 2007 | 20–12 | 62.5% | #19 | 1,855 | 5 | 43 |
| 27 | 2014 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #14 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2015 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #20 | 1,752 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2016 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,625 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #461 | 1,594 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |