H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC
Tatjana Maria vs Camila Giorgi H2H: 1-1
Tatjana Maria and Camila Giorgi are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Camila Giorgi leads 1–0 on clay, while Tatjana Maria leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Tatjana Maria won the 2019 Miami second round 6-3 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.
GER
Age 38
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 34
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2019* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Tatjana Maria | 6-3 6-4 | Camila Giorgi | Match data |
| May 26, 2015* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Camila Giorgi | 7-5 6-3 | 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 |
| Camila Giorgi | #116 | #26 | 1,978 | 1,875 | 204 | 184 | 52.6% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
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 | Camila Giorgi | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #136 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2007 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #89 | 1,452 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #151 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #223 | 1,423 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #75 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #98 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2010 | 8–16 | 33.3% | #137 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #34 | 1,710 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #203 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 26–21 | 55.3% | #35 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #112 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #82 | 1,638 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2013 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #268 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 15–12 | 55.6% | #78 | 1,778 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2014 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,446 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2015 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #74 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #100 | 1,725 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2016 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #115 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #76 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2017 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #47 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #33 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2018 | 12–22 | 35.3% | #72 | 1,637 | 0 | 1 | 2022 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #66 | 1,763 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2019 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #86 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 | 2023 | 20–15 | 57.1% | #53 | 1,788 | 0 | 4 |
| 32 | 2020 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,586 | 0 | 1 | 2024 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #116 | 1,760 | 0 | 4 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |