H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Ekaterina Makarova vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 1-1
Ekaterina Makarova and Kai-Chen Chang are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kai-Chen Chang leads 1–0 on clay, while Ekaterina Makarova leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Ekaterina Makarova won the 2010 Birmingham second round 6-3 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.
RUS
Age 38
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2010* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Ekaterina Makarova | 6-3 6-3 | Kai-Chen Chang | Match data |
| Apr 14, 2010* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R64 | Clay | Kai-Chen Chang | 1-6 6-2 6-3 | Ekaterina Makarova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ekaterina Makarova | #1,000 | #8 | 3,620 | 1,940 | 248 | 222 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 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.
| Ekaterina Makarova | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2007 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #110 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #46 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #60 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #49 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #53 | 1,604 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #20 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 24–18 | 57.1% | #24 | 1,838 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #11 | 1,837 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 26–16 | 61.9% | #23 | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,782 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #33 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #57 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #997 | 1,700 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |