H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Tatjana Maria vs Ana Konjuh H2H: 0-2
Ana Konjuh holds a 2–0 lead over Tatjana Maria in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ana Konjuh leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ana Konjuh won the 2016 Guangzhou third round 6-2 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.
GER
Age 38
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 28
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2016* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Ana Konjuh | 6-2 6-2 | Tatjana Maria | Match data |
| Sep 2, 2015* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Ana Konjuh | 6-4 6-4 | Tatjana Maria | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tatjana Maria | #76 | #41 | 1,320 | 1,810 | 164 | 254 | 39.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Ana Konjuh | #647 | #20 | 1,830 | 1,786 | 84 | 80 | 51.2% | 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 | Tatjana Maria | Ana Konjuh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #93 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 11–9 | 55.0% | #82 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #136 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #47 | 1,688 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2007 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #89 | 1,452 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #44 | 1,716 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2008 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #223 | 1,423 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #385 | 1,686 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2009 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1282 | 1,644 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2010 | 8–16 | 33.3% | #137 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #203 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #67 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #112 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 2022 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #108 | 1,642 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2013 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #268 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 | 2023 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #407 | 1,583 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2014 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,446 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2015 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #74 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | 2025 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #647 | 1,464 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2016 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #115 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2017 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #47 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2018 | 12–22 | 35.3% | #72 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2019 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #86 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2020 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,586 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2022 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #68 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2023 | 24–25 | 49.0% | #54 | 1,715 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2024 | 13–26 | 33.3% | #86 | 1,581 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2025 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #45 | 1,638 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2026 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #76 | 1,810 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |