H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:30 UTC
Saisai Zheng vs Timea Babos H2H: 2-0
Saisai Zheng holds a 2–0 lead over Timea Babos in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Saisai Zheng leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Saisai Zheng won the 2019 Acapulco fourth round 4-6 6-4 6-3.
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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
HUN
Age 33
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2019 | Acapulco | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Saisai Zheng | 4-6 6-4 6-3 | Timea Babos | Match data |
| Oct 9, 2014* | Tianjin | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Saisai Zheng | 7-5 6-4 | Timea Babos | 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 |
| Timea Babos | #453 | #25 | 1,675 | 1,768 | 123 | 177 | 41.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
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 | Timea Babos | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #138 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #145 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 |
| 2015 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #72 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #85 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #93 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 |
| 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #38 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 |
| 2019 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #42 | 1,749 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 |
| 2020 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #41 | 1,767 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 |
| 2021 | 10–16 | 38.5% | #79 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 |
| 2024 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #692 | 1,550 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #692 | 1,493 | 0 | 1 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 |