H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 22:32 UTC
Amanda Anisimova vs Qiang Wang H2H: 3-0
Amanda Anisimova holds a 3–0 lead over Qiang Wang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Amanda Anisimova leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Amanda Anisimova won the 2021 Rome second round 7-5 6-3.
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 24
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2021* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Amanda Anisimova | 7-5 6-3 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Aug 2, 2018* | San Jose | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Amanda Anisimova | 6-2 7-5 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Mar 20, 2018* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Amanda Anisimova | 6-3 1-6 6-2 | Qiang Wang | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amanda Anisimova | #9 | #4 | 6,680 | 2,123 | 172 | 103 | 62.5% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| Qiang Wang | #421 | #12 | 2,946 | 1,925 | 128 | 125 | 50.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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.
| Amanda Anisimova | Qiang Wang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2017 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #185 | 1,458 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 11–6 | 64.7% | #96 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #226 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 23–12 | 65.7% | #24 | 1,770 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #30 | 1,768 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #110 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 14–15 | 48.3% | #78 | 1,774 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 2022 | 33–14 | 70.2% | #23 | 1,902 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #45 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 |
| 2023 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #369 | 1,777 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 |
| 2024 | 17–12 | 58.6% | #36 | 1,867 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 |
| 2025 | 45–16 | 73.8% | #4 | 2,112 | 0 | 4 | 2020 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #34 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 |
| 2026 | 16–9 | 64.0% | #9 | 1,999 | 0 | 4 | 2021 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #91 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 |