H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Michael Chang vs Harel Levy H2H: 3-0
Michael Chang holds a 3–0 lead over Harel Levy in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Michael Chang leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Michael Chang won the 2000 Paris Masters third round 6-7(5) 6-4 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 54
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 47
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2000* | Paris Masters | Masters 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Michael Chang | 6-7(5) 6-4 6-4 | Harel Levy | Match data |
| Oct 19, 2000* | Shanghai | ATP 250 | R32 | Hard | Michael Chang | 4-6 6-4 6-1 | Harel Levy | Match data |
| Aug 30, 2000* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Michael Chang | 6-2 3-6 6-4 6-4 | Harel Levy | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Chang | #1,039 | #2 | 4,065 | 2,110 | 648 | 303 | 68.1% | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 34 |
| Harel Levy | #1,024 | #30 | 1,023 | 1,732 | 43 | 83 | 34.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Michael Chang | Harel Levy | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1987 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #163 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1988 | 23–13 | 63.9% | #30 | 1,842 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1989 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #5 | 1,971 | 1 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1990 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,917 | 1 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1991 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #15 | 2,002 | 1 | 5 | 1998 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #224 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 57–22 | 72.2% | #6 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1999 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #183 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 62–21 | 74.7% | #8 | 1,992 | 1 | 13 | 2000 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #59 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 66–19 | 77.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 1 | 19 | 2001 | 15–25 | 37.5% | #78 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 65–19 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 23 | 2002 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #252 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1996 | 63–19 | 76.8% | #2 | 1,985 | 1 | 26 | 2003 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #111 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1997 | 53–18 | 74.6% | #3 | 1,910 | 1 | 31 | 2004 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #247 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 1998 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #29 | 1,838 | 1 | 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1999 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #50 | 1,788 | 1 | 33 | 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #286 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2000 | 42–25 | 62.7% | #32 | 1,818 | 1 | 34 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #161 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2001 | 16–21 | 43.2% | #94 | 1,701 | 1 | 34 | 2008 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #248 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2002 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #124 | 1,625 | 1 | 34 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #119 | 1,569 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2003 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #383 | 1,551 | 1 | 34 | 2010 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #342 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |