H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Kai-Chen Chang vs Johanna Larsson H2H: 1-0
Kai-Chen Chang holds a 1–0 lead over Johanna Larsson in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kai-Chen Chang leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kai-Chen Chang won the 2012 Washington fourth 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.
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
SWE
Age 37
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 2012 | Washington | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Kai-Chen Chang | 7-5 6-4 | Johanna Larsson | Match data |
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 |
| Johanna Larsson | #236 | #45 | 1,230 | 1,745 | 153 | 177 | 46.4% | 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.
| Kai-Chen Chang | Johanna Larsson | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2006 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #389 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #177 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #172 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–9 | 50.0% | #69 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #59 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #73 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #84 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #70 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 25–19 | 56.8% | #56 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 29–24 | 54.7% | #50 | 1,716 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #80 | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #75 | 1,600 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 3–13 | 18.8% | #217 | 1,557 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #236 | 1,543 | 0 | 2 |