H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Qiang Wang vs Lauren Davis H2H: 2-0
Qiang Wang holds a 2–0 lead over Lauren Davis 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 2022 Guadalajara third round 6-2 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.
CHN
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 32
Right-Handed
157 cm / 5'2"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2022* | Guadalajara | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Qiang Wang | 6-2 6-1 | Lauren Davis | Match data |
| Jun 20, 2019* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Qiang Wang | 6-3 6-2 | Lauren Davis | Match data |
| Feb 12, 2017 | Doha | WTA 1000 | Q2 | Hard | Lauren Davis | 6-3 6-3 | 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 |
| Lauren Davis | #499 | #26 | 1,646 | 1,823 | 140 | 181 | 43.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 | Lauren Davis | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #319 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #226 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #91 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #70 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #110 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #55 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 13–21 | 38.2% | #88 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #45 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 12–9 | 57.1% | #61 | 1,668 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 2017 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #50 | 1,634 | 0 | 1 |
| 2019 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #173 | 1,610 | 0 | 1 |
| 2020 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #34 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 | 2019 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #64 | 1,733 | 0 | 1 |
| 2021 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 | 2020 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #75 | 1,622 | 0 | 1 |
| 2022 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #91 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 2021 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #89 | 1,646 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 | 2022 | 13–17 | 43.3% | #87 | 1,714 | 0 | 1 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 14–16 | 46.7% | #68 | 1,681 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #270 | 1,625 | 0 | 2 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2025 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #362 | 1,593 | 0 | 2 |