H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 10:32 UTC
Sloane Stephens vs Na Li H2H: 0-1
Na Li holds a 1–0 lead over Sloane Stephens in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Na Li leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Na Li won the 2014 Madrid fourth round 2-6 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.
USA
Age 33
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CHN
Age 44
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 2014* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Na Li | 2-6 6-3 6-2 | Sloane Stephens | 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 Li | #9 | #2 | 7,585 | 2,124 | 334 | 155 | 68.3% | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 9 |
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 | Sloane Stephens | Na Li | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #204 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2011 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #96 | 1,581 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2012 | 21–17 | 55.3% | #38 | 1,709 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2013 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #12 | 1,831 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2014 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #36 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 22 | 2015 | 34–20 | 63.0% | #30 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 6–1 | 85.7% | #78 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2016 | 21–8 | 72.4% | #35 | 1,800 | 0 | 4 | 2005 | 23–14 | 62.2% | #56 | 1,711 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2017 | 15–7 | 68.2% | #13 | 1,879 | 1 | 5 | 2006 | 36–22 | 62.1% | #21 | 1,801 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2018 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #6 | 1,931 | 1 | 6 | 2007 | 22–12 | 64.7% | #29 | 1,814 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2019 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #25 | 1,789 | 1 | 6 | 2008 | 24–12 | 66.7% | #23 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2020 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #39 | 1,642 | 1 | 6 | 2009 | 35–17 | 67.3% | #15 | 1,914 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2021 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #65 | 1,762 | 1 | 6 | 2010 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #11 | 1,844 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2022 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #37 | 1,784 | 1 | 7 | 2011 | 33–17 | 66.0% | #5 | 1,868 | 1 | 5 |
| 30 | 2023 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #47 | 1,799 | 1 | 7 | 2012 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #7 | 2,016 | 1 | 6 |
| 31 | 2024 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #74 | 1,691 | 1 | 8 | 2013 | 46–14 | 76.7% | #3 | 2,077 | 1 | 7 |
| 32 | 2025 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #479 | 1,607 | 1 | 8 | 2014 | 29–7 | 80.6% | #9 | 2,031 | 2 | 9 |
| 33 | 2026 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #315 | 1,616 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |