H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Stefanie Voegele vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 1-0
Stefanie Voegele holds a 1–0 lead over Kai-Chen Chang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Stefanie Voegele leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Stefanie Voegele won the 2016 Kaohsiung third round 1-6 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SUI
Age 36
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 11, 2016* | Kaohsiung | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Stefanie Voegele | 1-6 6-3 6-4 | Kai-Chen Chang | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stefanie Voegele | #1,075 | #42 | 1,255 | 1,712 | 100 | 175 | 36.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kai-Chen Chang | #1,233 | #82 | 808 | 1,647 | 32 | 59 | 35.2% | 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.
| Stefanie Voegele | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2008 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #124 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #75 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 9–22 | 29.0% | #135 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #138 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #92 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #50 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #79 | 1,550 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 7–17 | 29.2% | #119 | 1,513 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #114 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #169 | 1,650 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #83 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #119 | 1,582 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #116 | 1,597 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #147 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #260 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |