H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Madison Keys vs Qiang Wang H2H: 3-1
Madison Keys holds a 3–1 lead over Qiang Wang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Madison Keys leads 3–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Madison Keys won the 2022 Australian Open third round 4-6 6-3 7-6(2).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 31
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2022* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Madison Keys | 4-6 6-3 7-6(2) | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Nov 2, 2018* | Zhuhai | WTA Finals | R16 | Hard | Qiang Wang | 1-6 6-3 6-1 | Madison Keys | Match data |
| Feb 14, 2018* | Doha | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Madison Keys | 6-1 6-4 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Jan 17, 2018* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Madison Keys | 6-1 7-5 | Qiang Wang | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Madison Keys | #23 | #5 | 4,999 | 2,136 | 363 | 211 | 63.2% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 11 |
| Qiang Wang | #421 | #12 | 2,946 | 1,925 | 128 | 125 | 50.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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.
| Madison Keys | Qiang Wang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #616 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #185 | 1,458 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #273 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #226 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #137 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #110 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #45 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 |
| 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | 2019 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 |
| 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | 2020 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #34 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 |
| 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | 2021 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 |
| 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | 2022 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #91 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 |
| 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 |
| 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |