H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Kai-Chen Chang vs Ana Ivanovic H2H: 0-1
Ana Ivanovic holds a 1–0 lead over Kai-Chen Chang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Ana Ivanovic leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Ana Ivanovic won the 2010 Roland Garros first 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.
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
SRB
Age 38
Right-Handed
184 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 25, 2010* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Ana Ivanovic | 6-3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kai-Chen Chang | #1,233 | #82 | 808 | 1,647 | 32 | 59 | 35.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ana Ivanovic | #63 | #1 | 6,912 | 2,095 | 419 | 213 | 66.3% | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 15 |
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.
| Kai-Chen Chang | Ana Ivanovic | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #16 | 1,847 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 |
| 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 |
| 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 |
| 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 |
| 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 |
| 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 |
| 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 |