H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Kaia Kanepi vs Na Li H2H: 1-1
Kaia Kanepi and Na Li are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Na Li leads 1–0 on grass, while Kaia Kanepi leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Na Li won the 2010 Birmingham quarterfinal 6-4 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.
EST
Age 41
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2010* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | QF | Grass | Na Li | 6-4 6-2 | Kaia Kanepi | Match data |
| Jan 7, 2010* | Auckland | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Kaia Kanepi | 6-1 6-3 | Na Li | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaia Kanepi | #1,322 | #15 | 2,760 | 1,912 | 261 | 235 | 52.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Na Li | #9 | #2 | 7,585 | 2,124 | 334 | 155 | 68.3% | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 9 |
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.
| Age | Kaia Kanepi | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #200 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2002 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #285 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2005 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #98 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2006 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #78 | 1,610 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2007 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #75 | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2008 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #27 | 1,747 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2009 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #58 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2010 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #22 | 1,839 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2011 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #34 | 1,816 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2012 | 25–9 | 73.5% | #19 | 1,868 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2013 | 21–10 | 67.7% | #30 | 1,841 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2014 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #51 | 1,718 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2015 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #122 | 1,649 | 0 | 4 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,655 | 0 | 4 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | 2017 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #100 | 1,725 | 0 | 4 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |
| 33 | 2018 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #61 | 1,776 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 9–10 | 47.4% | #101 | 1,748 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2020 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #93 | 1,719 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #73 | 1,703 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2022 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #32 | 1,801 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2023 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #168 | 1,607 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |