H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 04:32 UTC
Coco Gauff vs Qiang Wang H2H: 3-1
Coco Gauff holds a 3–1 lead over Qiang Wang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Coco Gauff leads 2–0 on clay, while they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Coco Gauff won the 2022 Miami second round 7-5 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 22
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2022* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Coco Gauff | 7-5 6-4 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Jan 19, 2022* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Qiang Wang | 6-4 6-2 | Coco Gauff | Match data |
| Jun 2, 2021* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Coco Gauff | 6-3 7-6(1) | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| May 23, 2021* | Parma | WTA 250 | F | Clay | Coco Gauff | 6-1 6-3 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coco Gauff | #4 | #2 | 8,173 | 2,158 | 268 | 110 | 70.9% | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 11 |
| 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.
| Coco Gauff | Qiang Wang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2019 | 11–5 | 68.8% | #68 | 1,693 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #185 | 1,458 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 10–8 | 55.6% | #48 | 1,781 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #226 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 35–16 | 68.6% | #22 | 1,903 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 2022 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #7 | 1,925 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #110 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 |
| 2023 | 51–16 | 76.1% | #3 | 2,107 | 1 | 6 | 2016 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 2024 | 52–16 | 76.5% | #3 | 2,125 | 1 | 9 | 2017 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #45 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 |
| 2025 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #3 | 2,102 | 2 | 11 | 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 |
| 2026 | 28–11 | 71.8% | #4 | 2,092 | 2 | 11 | 2019 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #34 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 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 |