H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Saisai Zheng vs Anett Kontaveit H2H: 1-1
Saisai Zheng and Anett Kontaveit are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Anett Kontaveit won the 2016 Shenzhen fourth round 6-1 6-2.
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
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
EST
Age 30
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2016* | Shenzhen | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Anett Kontaveit | 6-1 6-2 | Saisai Zheng | Match data |
| Sep 25, 2015* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Saisai Zheng | 6-1 7-6(11) | Anett Kontaveit | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saisai Zheng | #692 | #34 | 1,585 | 1,776 | 83 | 130 | 39.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Anett Kontaveit | #81 | #2 | 4,721 | 2,109 | 205 | 138 | 59.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
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.
| Saisai Zheng | Anett Kontaveit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #276 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #249 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #159 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #91 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #112 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #34 | 1,706 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 33–23 | 58.9% | #20 | 1,832 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 21–11 | 65.6% | #23 | 1,912 | 0 | 1 |
| 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #7 | 2,049 | 0 | 5 |
| 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 2022 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #17 | 1,882 | 0 | 6 |
| 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2023 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #81 | 1,776 | 0 | 6 |
| 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |