H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Elina Svitolina vs Saisai Zheng H2H: 1-1
Elina Svitolina and Saisai Zheng are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Saisai Zheng leads 1–0 on clay, while Elina Svitolina leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Saisai Zheng won the 2017 Madrid second round 2-6 7-6(4) 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.
UKR
Age 31
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2017 | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Saisai Zheng | 2-6 7-6(4) 6-3 | Elina Svitolina | Match data |
| Feb 22, 2017* | Dubai | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Elina Svitolina | 7-5 6-1 | Saisai Zheng | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elina Svitolina | #10 | #3 | 6,085 | 2,143 | 429 | 227 | 65.4% | 0 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 20 |
| Saisai Zheng | #692 | #34 | 1,585 | 1,776 | 83 | 130 | 39.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
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.
| Elina Svitolina | Saisai Zheng | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #131 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #276 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #45 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 36–24 | 60.0% | #28 | 1,805 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 40–24 | 62.5% | #19 | 1,788 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #14 | 1,828 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 50–15 | 76.9% | #6 | 1,942 | 0 | 9 | 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 44–15 | 74.6% | #4 | 1,983 | 0 | 13 | 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,963 | 0 | 13 | 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 | 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 |
| 2021 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,900 | 0 | 16 | 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 |
| 2022 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #240 | 1,765 | 0 | 16 | 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 |
| 2023 | 18–9 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,886 | 0 | 17 | 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | 27–16 | 62.8% | #23 | 1,906 | 0 | 17 | 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 |
| 2025 | 33–14 | 70.2% | #14 | 1,980 | 0 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 35–10 | 77.8% | #10 | 2,085 | 0 | 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |