H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Sara Errani vs Shahar Peer H2H: 1-1
Sara Errani and Shahar Peer are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Sara Errani leads 1–0 on clay, while Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sara Errani won the 2015 Bucharest fourth round 7-6(5) 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.
ITA
Age 39
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 17, 2015* | Bucharest | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Sara Errani | 7-6(5) 6-2 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Jan 16, 2010* | Hobart | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-2 6-0 | 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 |
| Shahar Peer | #1,185 | #11 | 3,410 | 1,966 | 268 | 204 | 56.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
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 | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2007 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #69 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2008 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #42 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2009 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #47 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2010 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #43 | 1,720 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2011 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #45 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2012 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2013 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #7 | 1,894 | 0 | 7 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2014 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #14 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2015 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #20 | 1,752 | 0 | 8 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |