H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Timea Babos vs Vania King H2H: 0-1
Vania King holds a 1–0 lead over Timea Babos in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Vania King leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Vania King won the 2016 Montreal second round 6-4 3-6 7-6(5).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
HUN
Age 33
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 27, 2016* | Montreal | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Vania King | 6-4 3-6 7-6(5) | Timea Babos | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timea Babos | #453 | #25 | 1,675 | 1,768 | 123 | 177 | 41.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Vania King | #824 | #50 | 1,225 | 1,760 | 128 | 160 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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 | Timea Babos | Vania King | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |