H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Kai-Chen Chang vs Sílvia Soler-Espinosa H2H: 1-0
Kai-Chen Chang holds a 1–0 lead over Sílvia Soler-Espinosa 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 2013 Shenzhen third round 4-6 6-1 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
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 38
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2013* | Shenzhen | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Kai-Chen Chang | 4-6 6-1 6-3 | Sílvia Soler-Espinosa | 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 |
| Sílvia Soler-Espinosa | #858 | #54 | 1,157 | 1,643 | 56 | 102 | 35.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Sílvia Soler-Espinosa | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #183 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #167 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #81 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #83 | 1,581 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #82 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #66 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 3–14 | 17.6% | #145 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #128 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #225 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #190 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #681 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 |