H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Qiang Wang vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 2-0
Qiang Wang holds a 2–0 lead over Kai-Chen Chang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Qiang Wang leads 1–0 on grass and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Qiang Wang won the 2017 Hong Kong third round 6-3 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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2017* | Hong Kong | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Qiang Wang | 6-3 6-0 | Kai-Chen Chang | Match data |
| Jul 5, 2017* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Qiang Wang | 6-3 6-4 | Kai-Chen Chang | 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 |
| Kai-Chen Chang | #1,233 | #82 | 808 | 1,647 | 32 | 59 | 35.2% | 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.
| Qiang Wang | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #226 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #110 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #45 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #34 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #91 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |