H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Alona Bondarenko H2H: 1-2
Alona Bondarenko holds a 2–1 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Alona Bondarenko leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Alona Bondarenko won the 2010 Hobart final 6-2 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.
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
UKR
Age 41
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 17, 2010* | Hobart | WTA 250 | F | Hard | Alona Bondarenko | 6-2 6-4 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Jul 11, 2009* | Budapest | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Alona Bondarenko | 7-5 6-1 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| May 13, 2006* | Prague | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Shahar Peer | 7-5 6-0 | Alona Bondarenko | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shahar Peer | #1,185 | #11 | 3,410 | 1,966 | 268 | 204 | 56.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Alona Bondarenko | #1,151 | #19 | 2,020 | 1,872 | 154 | 143 | 51.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
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 | Shahar Peer | Alona Bondarenko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #187 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #79 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #32 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #21 | 1,765 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 25–20 | 55.6% | #33 | 1,785 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 30–25 | 54.5% | #32 | 1,781 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #36 | 1,732 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #257 | 1,565 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |