H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Varvara Lepchenko vs Qiang Wang H2H: 0-1
Qiang Wang holds a 1–0 lead over Varvara Lepchenko in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Qiang Wang leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Qiang Wang won the 2015 Beijing second round 6-2 3-6 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 40
Left-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
CHN
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2015* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Qiang Wang | 6-2 3-6 6-2 | Varvara Lepchenko | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Varvara Lepchenko | #172 | #19 | 1,875 | 1,804 | 155 | 220 | 41.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qiang Wang | #421 | #12 | 2,946 | 1,925 | 128 | 125 | 50.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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.
| Varvara Lepchenko | Qiang Wang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,482 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #185 | 1,458 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #132 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #226 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #98 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 2–10 | 16.7% | #139 | 1,452 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #110 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #121 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #72 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #102 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #45 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #74 | 1,469 | 0 | 0 | 2018 | 37–21 | 63.8% | #21 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 |
| 2011 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #127 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2019 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #30 | 1,797 | 0 | 2 |
| 2012 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #21 | 1,717 | 0 | 0 | 2020 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #34 | 1,770 | 0 | 2 |
| 2013 | 16–25 | 39.0% | #54 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 2021 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 |
| 2014 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #35 | 1,756 | 0 | 0 | 2022 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #91 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 |
| 2015 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #47 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,624 | 0 | 2 |
| 2016 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #90 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2017 | 17–21 | 44.7% | #63 | 1,704 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2018 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #129 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 2–11 | 15.4% | #173 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #181 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #127 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #129 | 1,639 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #147 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #172 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |