H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Shuai Peng vs Jie Zheng H2H: 1-2
Jie Zheng holds a 2–1 lead over Shuai Peng in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Jie Zheng leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Shuai Peng won the 2014 US Open first round 6-3 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
Age 40
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 43
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2014* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Shuai Peng | 6-3 6-3 | Jie Zheng | Match data |
| Jan 20, 2010* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Jie Zheng | 0-6 6-1 6-2 | Shuai Peng | Match data |
| Jan 15, 2010* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Jie Zheng | 6-2 6-1 | Shuai Peng | 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 |
| Jie Zheng | #961 | #15 | 2,745 | 1,898 | 216 | 193 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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 | Jie Zheng | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2002 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2005 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #36 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #84 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2006 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #55 | 1,727 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #45 | 1,737 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2008 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #40 | 1,706 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2009 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #46 | 1,770 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2010 | 15–13 | 53.6% | #72 | 1,742 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2011 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #17 | 1,817 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2012 | 21–22 | 48.8% | #40 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 2013 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 2014 | 28–22 | 56.0% | #21 | 1,743 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | 2015 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #137 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 |
| 30 | 2016 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #84 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 |
| 31 | 2017 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #27 | 1,815 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |