H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Shuai Zhang vs Ipek Soylu H2H: 1-0
Shuai Zhang holds a 1–0 lead over Ipek Soylu in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Shuai Zhang leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shuai Zhang won the 2017 Guangzhou fourth round 6-0 6-0.
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
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
TUR
Age 30
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2017* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Shuai Zhang | 6-0 6-0 | Ipek Soylu | 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 Zhang | #54 | #22 | 1,905 | 1,856 | 225 | 288 | 43.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Ipek Soylu | #1,111 | #151 | 380 | 1,523 | 4 | 11 | 26.7% | 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.
| Shuai Zhang | Ipek Soylu | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #203 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #149 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #158 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #235 | 1,412 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #159 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #154 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #196 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #90 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2011 | 8–22 | 26.7% | #126 | 1,443 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #127 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2013 | 9–4 | 69.2% | #52 | 1,599 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #61 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #139 | 1,519 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2016 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #23 | 1,722 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #36 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #40 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #40 | 1,680 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 12–10 | 54.5% | #35 | 1,731 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #60 | 1,632 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #25 | 1,732 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 4–18 | 18.2% | #245 | 1,525 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #205 | 1,576 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #81 | 1,731 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #54 | 1,714 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |