H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Cagla Buyukakcay vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 1-0
Cagla Buyukakcay holds a 1–0 lead over Kai-Chen Chang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Cagla Buyukakcay leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Cagla Buyukakcay won the 2016 Kuala Lumpur fourth 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.
TUR
Age 36
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2016* | Kuala Lumpur | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Cagla Buyukakcay | 7-5 6-3 | Kai-Chen Chang | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cagla Buyukakcay | #373 | #60 | 980 | 1,613 | 22 | 52 | 29.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Kai-Chen Chang | #1,233 | #82 | 808 | 1,647 | 32 | 59 | 35.2% | 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.
| Cagla Buyukakcay | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #388 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #280 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #191 | 1,447 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #158 | 1,438 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #137 | 1,443 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #126 | 1,422 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 12–11 | 52.2% | #83 | 1,534 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #160 | 1,517 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #264 | 1,525 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #179 | 1,534 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #178 | 1,560 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #241 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #382 | 1,472 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |