H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Qiang Wang vs Caroline Wozniacki H2H: 1-4
Caroline Wozniacki holds a 4–1 lead over Qiang Wang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 5 main-draw meetings, Caroline Wozniacki leads 4–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Caroline Wozniacki won the 2018 Beijing semifinal 6-1 6-3.
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
–
4
5 main draw meetings
DEN
Age 36
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2018 | Beijing | WTA 1000 | SF | Hard | Caroline Wozniacki | 6-1 6-3 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Oct 1, 2017 | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Caroline Wozniacki | 6-1 6-7(4) 6-1 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Oct 15, 2016* | Hong Kong | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Caroline Wozniacki | 6-3 7-5 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Oct 8, 2015* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Caroline Wozniacki | 7-5 6-0 | Qiang Wang | Match data |
| Feb 28, 2013* | Kuala Lumpur | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Qiang Wang | 2-6 7-6(1) 6-1 | Caroline Wozniacki | 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 |
| Caroline Wozniacki | #289 | #1 | 10,255 | 2,153 | 605 | 269 | 69.2% | 1 | 6 | 1 | 11 | 10 | 29 |
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 | Caroline Wozniacki | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2005 | 0–2 | 0.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #226 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #231 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #60 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #110 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 51–19 | 72.9% | #12 | 1,909 | 0 | 3 |
| 2016 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 66–25 | 72.5% | #4 | 1,894 | 0 | 6 |
| 2017 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #45 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 63–17 | 78.8% | #1 | 2,106 | 0 | 12 |
| 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 63–17 | 78.8% | #1 | 1,987 | 0 | 18 |
| 2019 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #10 | 1,972 | 0 | 20 |
| 2020 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #34 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 21 |
| 2021 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 49–19 | 72.1% | #8 | 2,010 | 0 | 22 |
| 2022 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #91 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 39–23 | 62.9% | #17 | 1,814 | 0 | 23 |
| 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 30–15 | 66.7% | #19 | 1,885 | 0 | 25 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 60–22 | 73.2% | #3 | 1,975 | 0 | 27 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #3 | 1,913 | 1 | 29 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 20–15 | 57.1% | #38 | 1,835 | 1 | 29 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #36 | 1,844 | 1 | 29 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #249 | 1,856 | 1 | 29 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 15–12 | 55.6% | #70 | 1,840 | 1 | 29 |