H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Stefanie Voegele vs Ekaterina Ivanova H2H: 0-1
Ekaterina Ivanova holds a 1–0 lead over Stefanie Voegele in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ekaterina Ivanova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ekaterina Ivanova won the 2010 Guangzhou third 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.
SUI
Age 36
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Right-Handed
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2010* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Ekaterina Ivanova | 6-3 7-6(6) | Stefanie Voegele | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stefanie Voegele | #1,075 | #42 | 1,255 | 1,712 | 100 | 175 | 36.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ekaterina Ivanova | #1,270 | #136 | 464 | 1,514 | 10 | 16 | 38.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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.
| Stefanie Voegele | Ekaterina Ivanova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2008 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #124 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #211 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #75 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #156 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #135 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #141 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #138 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #152 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #92 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #156 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #50 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #79 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 7–17 | 29.2% | #119 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #114 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #169 | 1,650 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #83 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #119 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #116 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #147 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #260 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |