H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:30 UTC
Sara Errani vs Timea Babos H2H: 2-3
Timea Babos holds a 3–2 lead over Sara Errani in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, they are tied 2–2 on hard courts, while Timea Babos leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Timea Babos won the 2018 Rome second round 6-3 7-6(6).
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
2
–
3
5 main draw meetings
HUN
Age 33
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 2018* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Timea Babos | 6-3 7-6(6) | Sara Errani | Match data |
| Feb 24, 2016* | Doha | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Timea Babos | 6-4 6-1 | Sara Errani | Match data |
| Mar 6, 2015* | Monterrey | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Sara Errani | 6-3 6-3 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Feb 14, 2013* | Doha | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Sara Errani | 6-4 6-0 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Feb 25, 2012* | Monterrey | WTA 500 | SF | Hard | Timea Babos | 6-4 6-7(3) 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 |
| Timea Babos | #453 | #25 | 1,675 | 1,768 | 123 | 177 | 41.0% | 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 | Sara Errani | Timea Babos | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2007 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #69 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2008 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #42 | 1,747 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2009 | 25–27 | 48.1% | #47 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2010 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #43 | 1,720 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2011 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #45 | 1,671 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2012 | 53–19 | 73.6% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2013 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #7 | 1,894 | 0 | 7 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2014 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #14 | 1,773 | 0 | 7 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2015 | 46–26 | 63.9% | #20 | 1,752 | 0 | 8 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2016 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,625 | 0 | 9 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2017 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #144 | 1,650 | 0 | 9 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2018 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #112 | 1,765 | 0 | 9 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |