H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Su-Wei Hsieh vs Anett Kontaveit H2H: 0-3
Anett Kontaveit holds a 3–0 lead over Su-Wei Hsieh in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Anett Kontaveit leads 3–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anett Kontaveit won the 2020 Brisbane third round 6-4 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.
TPE
Age 40
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
EST
Age 30
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2020* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Anett Kontaveit | 6-4 6-1 | Su-Wei Hsieh | Match data |
| Mar 23, 2019* | Miami | WTA 1000 | QF | Hard | Anett Kontaveit | 3-6 6-2 7-5 | Su-Wei Hsieh | Match data |
| Sep 24, 2015* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Anett Kontaveit | 6-1 6-3 | Su-Wei Hsieh | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su-Wei Hsieh | #909 | #23 | 1,960 | 1,874 | 150 | 173 | 46.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Anett Kontaveit | #81 | #2 | 4,721 | 2,109 | 205 | 138 | 59.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
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 | Su-Wei Hsieh | Anett Kontaveit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2001 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #164 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #267 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #249 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #159 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2005 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #142 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #91 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #129 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #112 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #157 | 1,419 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 26–19 | 57.8% | #34 | 1,706 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2008 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #81 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 33–23 | 58.9% | #20 | 1,832 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #314 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 24–16 | 60.0% | #26 | 1,865 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #362 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 21–11 | 65.6% | #23 | 1,912 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #172 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #7 | 2,049 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2012 | 22–13 | 62.9% | #25 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 | 2022 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #17 | 1,882 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2013 | 13–25 | 34.2% | #86 | 1,558 | 0 | 2 | 2023 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #81 | 1,776 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 2014 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2015 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #93 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2016 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #87 | 1,588 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2017 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #82 | 1,600 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2018 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #28 | 1,768 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #32 | 1,777 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #67 | 1,703 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2021 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #108 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2023 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #713 | 1,658 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |