H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Sania Mirza H2H: 1-4
Sania Mirza holds a 4–1 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Sania Mirza leads 4–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2011 US Open first round 6-7(5) 6-3 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.
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
4
5 main draw meetings
IND
Age 39
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2011* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-7(5) 6-3 6-1 | Sania Mirza | Match data |
| Oct 15, 2009* | Osaka | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Sania Mirza | 3-6 6-3 6-4 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Mar 13, 2008* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Sania Mirza | 6-7(7) 7-5 6-3 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Aug 1, 2007* | San Diego | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Sania Mirza | 6-3 4-6 6-2 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Aug 26, 2005* | Forest Hills | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Sania Mirza | 7-6(4) 6-1 | Shahar Peer | 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 |
| Sania Mirza | #707 | #27 | 1,148 | 1,819 | 121 | 117 | 50.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Sania Mirza | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #462 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #169 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 27–16 | 62.8% | #34 | 1,677 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 20–24 | 45.5% | #65 | 1,651 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #31 | 1,750 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #101 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 17–13 | 56.7% | #57 | 1,724 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,607 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #104 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #278 | 1,541 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |