H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Qiang Wang vs Johanna Konta H2H: 3-0
Qiang Wang holds a 3–0 lead over Johanna Konta in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Qiang Wang leads 3–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Qiang Wang won the 2019 Miami second round 6-4 6-0.
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
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
GBR
Age 35
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2019* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Qiang Wang | 6-4 6-0 | Johanna Konta | Match data |
| Oct 14, 2016* | Hong Kong | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Qiang Wang | (w/o) | Johanna Konta | Match data |
| Jan 7, 2016* | Shenzhen | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Qiang Wang | 6-3 3-6 6-3 | Johanna Konta | 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 |
| Johanna Konta | #113 | #4 | 5,110 | 1,990 | 174 | 120 | 59.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
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 | Johanna Konta | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #308 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #226 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #156 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #114 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #110 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #148 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 13–8 | 61.9% | #48 | 1,694 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #45 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #10 | 1,854 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #9 | 1,836 | 0 | 3 |
| 2019 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #37 | 1,794 | 0 | 3 |
| 2020 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #34 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 33–15 | 68.8% | #12 | 1,925 | 0 | 3 |
| 2021 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 | 2020 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #14 | 1,825 | 0 | 3 |
| 2022 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #91 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 2021 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #113 | 1,807 | 0 | 4 |
| 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |