H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Kai-Chen Chang vs Vania King H2H: 1-1
Kai-Chen Chang and Vania King 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, Kai-Chen Chang won the 2016 Tianjin third round 6-1 6-2.
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
USA
Age 37
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2016* | Tianjin | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Kai-Chen Chang | 6-1 6-2 | Vania King | Match data |
| Jul 19, 2012* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Vania King | 6-1 6-4 | 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 |
| Vania King | #824 | #50 | 1,225 | 1,760 | 128 | 160 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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 | Vania King | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #164 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #60 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #109 | 1,608 | 0 | 1 |
| 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #128 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #80 | 1,588 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #86 | 1,595 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #76 | 1,689 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #69 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #85 | 1,630 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #111 | 1,641 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #410 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #78 | 1,643 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #492 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #356 | 1,559 | 0 | 1 |