H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Madison Keys vs Shuai Peng H2H: 1-1
Madison Keys and Shuai Peng are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Shuai Peng leads 1–0 on clay, while Madison Keys leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shuai Peng won the 2014 Charleston third round 6-1 6-7(3) 7-6(4).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 31
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 40
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 3, 2014* | Charleston | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Shuai Peng | 6-1 6-7(3) 7-6(4) | Madison Keys | Match data |
| Sep 26, 2013* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Madison Keys | 7-5 6-2 | Shuai Peng | 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 |
| Shuai Peng | #820 | #14 | 2,825 | 1,890 | 300 | 258 | 53.8% | 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.
| Age | Madison Keys | Shuai Peng | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #616 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #518 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #273 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #366 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2012 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #137 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #221 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2013 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #80 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #36 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #55 | 1,727 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #45 | 1,737 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #40 | 1,706 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #46 | 1,770 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 15–13 | 53.6% | #72 | 1,742 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #17 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #40 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | 2013 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | 2014 | 28–22 | 56.0% | #21 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | 2015 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #137 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | 2016 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #84 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | 2017 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #27 | 1,815 | 0 | 2 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #125 | 1,741 | 0 | 2 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #109 | 1,679 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #117 | 1,636 | 0 | 2 |