H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Shuai Peng vs Jana Cepelova H2H: 1-0
Shuai Peng holds a 1–0 lead over Jana Cepelova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Shuai Peng leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shuai Peng won the 2014 Shenzhen quarterfinal 6-3 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
Age 40
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
SVK
Age 33
Right-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4, 2014* | Shenzhen | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Shuai Peng | 6-3 6-2 | Jana Cepelova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shuai Peng | #820 | #14 | 2,825 | 1,890 | 300 | 258 | 53.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Jana Cepelova | #894 | #50 | 1,074 | 1,685 | 55 | 91 | 37.7% | 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.
| Age | Shuai Peng | Jana Cepelova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #518 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #366 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #221 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2004 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #80 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #201 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2005 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #36 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #111 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2006 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #55 | 1,727 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #76 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #45 | 1,737 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 18–19 | 48.6% | #56 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2008 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #40 | 1,706 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #147 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2009 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #46 | 1,770 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #100 | 1,634 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2010 | 15–13 | 53.6% | #72 | 1,742 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 8–20 | 28.6% | #108 | 1,638 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2011 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #17 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #188 | 1,631 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2012 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #40 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #158 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2013 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2014 | 28–22 | 56.0% | #21 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2015 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #137 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2016 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #84 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2017 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #27 | 1,815 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2018 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #125 | 1,741 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #109 | 1,679 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #117 | 1,636 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |