H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Madison Keys vs Xinyu Wang H2H: 4-0
Madison Keys holds a 4–0 lead over Xinyu Wang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Madison Keys leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Madison Keys won the 2026 Berlin third round 7-6(3) 6-1.
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
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 24
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2026 | Berlin | WTA 500 | R32 | Grass | Madison Keys | 7-6(3) 6-1 | Xinyu Wang | Match data |
| May 23, 2024* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Madison Keys | 7-5 6-0 | Xinyu Wang | Match data |
| Mar 24, 2024* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Madison Keys | 6-4 7-6(5) | Xinyu Wang | Match data |
| Jan 19, 2023* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Madison Keys | 6-3 6-2 | Xinyu 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 |
| Xinyu Wang | #40 | #30 | 1,581 | 1,857 | 105 | 121 | 46.5% | 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.
| Age | Madison Keys | Xinyu Wang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #273 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #309 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2012 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #137 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #150 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2013 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #153 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #101 | 1,675 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | 2022 | 6–18 | 25.0% | #86 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | 2023 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #36 | 1,757 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | 2024 | 26–25 | 51.0% | #37 | 1,775 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | 2025 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #57 | 1,751 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | 2026 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #40 | 1,746 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |