H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Kai-Chen Chang vs Kurumi Nara H2H: 1-1
Kai-Chen Chang and Kurumi Nara are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Kurumi Nara won the 2016 Jiangxi Open 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
–
1
2 main draw meetings
JPN
Age 34
Right-Handed
155 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2016* | Jiangxi Open | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Kurumi Nara | 7-5 6-4 | Kai-Chen Chang | Match data |
| Sep 16, 2010* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Kai-Chen Chang | 6-1 6-2 | Kurumi Nara | 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 |
| Kurumi Nara | #246 | #32 | 1,412 | 1,700 | 82 | 116 | 41.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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.
| Kai-Chen Chang | Kurumi Nara | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #181 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #130 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #140 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #148 | 1,437 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #81 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #44 | 1,649 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 19–22 | 46.3% | #81 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #102 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 0–13 | 0.0% | #161 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #140 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #185 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 |