H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:30 UTC
Saisai Zheng vs Kiki Bertens H2H: 1-2
Kiki Bertens holds a 2–1 lead over Saisai Zheng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Kiki Bertens leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Saisai Zheng won the 2020 Doha fourth round 3-6 6-3 6-4.
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
–
2
3 main draw meetings
NED
Age 34
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2020* | Doha | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Saisai Zheng | 3-6 6-3 6-4 | Kiki Bertens | Match data |
| Oct 27, 2019* | Zhuhai | WTA Finals | SF | Hard | Kiki Bertens | 2-6 6-3 6-4 | Saisai Zheng | Match data |
| Mar 22, 2016* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Kiki Bertens | 6-3 6-2 | Saisai Zheng | 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 |
| Kiki Bertens | #25 | #4 | 5,430 | 2,015 | 214 | 168 | 56.0% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 11 |
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 | Kiki Bertens | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #63 | 1,581 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #87 | 1,552 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #68 | 1,580 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 7–17 | 29.2% | #104 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #22 | 1,723 | 0 | 2 |
| 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #31 | 1,684 | 0 | 5 |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 46–22 | 67.6% | #9 | 1,912 | 0 | 8 |
| 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 54–25 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,897 | 0 | 10 |
| 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 13–6 | 68.4% | #9 | 1,883 | 0 | 11 |
| 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #25 | 1,749 | 0 | 11 |
| 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |