H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC
Sloane Stephens vs Na Lae Han H2H: 1-0
Sloane Stephens holds a 1–0 lead over Na Lae Han in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Sloane Stephens leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Sloane Stephens won the 2015 Seoul third round 6-1 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 33
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
KOR
Left-Handed
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2015* | Seoul | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Sloane Stephens | 6-1 6-1 | Na Lae Han | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sloane Stephens | #315 | #3 | 5,727 | 1,970 | 298 | 240 | 55.4% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 8 |
| Na Lae Han | #973 | #149 | 416 | 1,517 | 5 | 14 | 26.3% | 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.
| Sloane Stephens | Na Lae Han | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #204 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #313 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #96 | 1,581 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #257 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 21–17 | 55.3% | #38 | 1,709 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,465 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #12 | 1,831 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #256 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #36 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #218 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 34–20 | 63.0% | #30 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #181 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 21–8 | 72.4% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 4 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #204 | 1,429 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 15–7 | 68.2% | #13 | 1,879 | 1 | 5 | 2021 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #268 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #6 | 1,931 | 1 | 6 | 2022 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #160 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #25 | 1,789 | 1 | 6 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #321 | 1,429 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #39 | 1,642 | 1 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #65 | 1,762 | 1 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #37 | 1,784 | 1 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #47 | 1,799 | 1 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #74 | 1,691 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #479 | 1,607 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #315 | 1,616 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |