H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Qiang Wang vs Ashleigh Barty H2H: 1-2
Ashleigh Barty holds a 2–1 lead over Qiang Wang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Ashleigh Barty leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Qiang Wang won the 2019 US Open fourth round 6-2 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.
CHN
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
AUS
Age 30
Right-Handed
166 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2019* | US Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Qiang Wang | 6-2 6-4 | Ashleigh Barty | Match data |
| Nov 4, 2018* | Zhuhai | WTA Finals | F | Hard | Ashleigh Barty | 6-3 6-4 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| May 25, 2018* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | QF | Clay | Ashleigh Barty | 7-5 6-4 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qiang Wang | #421 | #12 | 2,946 | 1,925 | 128 | 125 | 50.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Ashleigh Barty | #1 | #1 | 10,185 | 2,199 | 191 | 70 | 73.2% | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 15 |
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.
| Qiang Wang | Ashleigh Barty | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #185 | 1,458 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #226 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #190 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #223 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #110 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #272 | 1,593 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 30–14 | 68.2% | #17 | 1,888 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #45 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 40–18 | 69.0% | #15 | 1,964 | 0 | 3 |
| 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 48–12 | 80.0% | #1 | 2,070 | 1 | 7 |
| 2019 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 | 2020 | 12–3 | 80.0% | #1 | 2,082 | 1 | 8 |
| 2020 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #34 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 | 2021 | 43–7 | 86.0% | #1 | 2,142 | 2 | 13 |
| 2021 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 | 2022 | 11–0 | 100.0% | #1 | 2,199 | 3 | 15 |
| 2022 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #91 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |