H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Kai-Chen Chang vs Kaia Kanepi H2H: 2-0
Kai-Chen Chang holds a 2–0 lead over Kaia Kanepi in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kai-Chen Chang leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kai-Chen Chang won the 2009 Tokyo 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.
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
EST
Age 41
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2009* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Kai-Chen Chang | 6-3 6-3 | Kaia Kanepi | Match data |
| Sep 2, 2009* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Kai-Chen Chang | 6-0 2-6 6-2 | Kaia Kanepi | 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 |
| Kaia Kanepi | #1,322 | #15 | 2,760 | 1,912 | 261 | 235 | 52.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
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 | Kaia Kanepi | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #200 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #285 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #98 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #78 | 1,610 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #75 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #27 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #58 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #22 | 1,839 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #34 | 1,816 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 25–9 | 73.5% | #19 | 1,868 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 21–10 | 67.7% | #30 | 1,841 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #51 | 1,718 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #122 | 1,649 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,655 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #100 | 1,725 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #61 | 1,776 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 9–10 | 47.4% | #101 | 1,748 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #93 | 1,719 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #73 | 1,703 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #32 | 1,801 | 0 | 4 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #168 | 1,607 | 0 | 4 |