H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:30 UTC
Zarina Diyas vs Ekaterina Makarova H2H: 0-2
Ekaterina Makarova holds a 2–0 lead over Zarina Diyas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Ekaterina Makarova leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ekaterina Makarova won the 2015 Dubai fourth 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.
KAZ
Age 32
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2015* | Dubai | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-3 6-4 | Zarina Diyas | Match data |
| Aug 31, 2014* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-2 6-4 | Zarina Diyas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zarina Diyas | #437 | #31 | 1,495 | 1,751 | 99 | 127 | 43.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Ekaterina Makarova | #1,000 | #8 | 3,620 | 1,940 | 248 | 222 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
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 | Zarina Diyas | Ekaterina Makarova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #242 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2010 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #172 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #227 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2012 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2014 | 20–14 | 58.8% | #33 | 1,683 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2015 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #52 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2016 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #150 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2017 | 7–4 | 63.6% | #66 | 1,667 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2018 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #89 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2019 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #77 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2020 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #80 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2021 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #102 | 1,688 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1031 | 1,680 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #382 | 1,632 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 |