H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Timea Babos vs Su-Wei Hsieh H2H: 1-1
Timea Babos and Su-Wei Hsieh are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Su-Wei Hsieh leads 1–0 on clay, while Timea Babos leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Timea Babos won the 2018 Beijing second round 6-2 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.
HUN
Age 33
Right-Handed
179 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
TPE
Age 40
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2018 | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Timea Babos | 6-2 6-2 | Su-Wei Hsieh | Match data |
| May 3, 2012* | Budapest | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Su-Wei Hsieh | 6-7(4) 6-4 6-1 | Timea Babos | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timea Babos | #453 | #25 | 1,675 | 1,768 | 123 | 177 | 41.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Su-Wei Hsieh | #909 | #23 | 1,960 | 1,874 | 150 | 173 | 46.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
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 | Timea Babos | Su-Wei Hsieh | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #268 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2012 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #67 | 1,553 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #142 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2013 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #88 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #129 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2014 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #99 | 1,482 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #157 | 1,419 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2015 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #70 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #81 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2016 | 35–27 | 56.5% | #28 | 1,712 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #314 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2017 | 20–26 | 43.5% | #57 | 1,637 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #362 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2018 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #59 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #172 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2019 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #89 | 1,595 | 0 | 3 | 2012 | 22–13 | 62.9% | #25 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2020 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #115 | 1,542 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 13–25 | 34.2% | #86 | 1,558 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,497 | 0 | 3 | 2014 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2022 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #336 | 1,455 | 0 | 3 | 2015 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #93 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | 2023 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,480 | 0 | 3 | 2016 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #87 | 1,588 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | 2024 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #338 | 1,451 | 0 | 3 | 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 |