H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC
Varvara Lepchenko vs Shahar Peer H2H: 1-1
Varvara Lepchenko and Shahar Peer are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Varvara Lepchenko leads 1–0 on clay, while Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Varvara Lepchenko won the 2012 Madrid third round 7-6(2) 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.
USA
Age 40
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10, 2012* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R32 | Clay | Varvara Lepchenko | 7-6(2) 6-4 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Aug 16, 2006* | Montreal | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-4 6-4 | Varvara Lepchenko | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Varvara Lepchenko | #172 | #19 | 1,875 | 1,804 | 155 | 220 | 41.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shahar Peer | #1,185 | #11 | 3,410 | 1,966 | 268 | 204 | 56.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
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 | Varvara Lepchenko | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2005 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #132 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2006 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #98 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2007 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #139 | 1,452 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2008 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #121 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2009 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #102 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2010 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #74 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2011 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #127 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2012 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #21 | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2013 | 16–25 | 39.0% | #54 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2014 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #35 | 1,756 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2015 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #47 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2016 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #90 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2017 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #63 | 1,704 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2018 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #129 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #173 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #181 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2021 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #127 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2024 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #129 | 1,639 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #147 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 40 | 2026 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #172 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |