H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC
Yafan Wang vs Alison Van Uytvanck H2H: 2-1
Yafan Wang holds a 2–1 lead over Alison Van Uytvanck in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on grass, while Yafan Wang leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Yafan Wang won the 2019 Mallorca fourth round 7-6(3) 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CHN
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
BEL
Age 32
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21, 2019* | Mallorca | WTA 250 | R16 | Grass | Yafan Wang | 7-6(3) 6-3 | Alison Van Uytvanck | Match data |
| Jun 13, 2019* | S-Hertogenbosch | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Alison Van Uytvanck | 7-6(4) 6-3 | Yafan Wang | Match data |
| Aug 31, 2016* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Yafan Wang | 6-3 7-6(4) | Alison Van Uytvanck | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yafan Wang | #358 | #47 | 1,185 | 1,784 | 71 | 89 | 44.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Alison Van Uytvanck | #229 | #37 | 1,355 | 1,765 | 119 | 147 | 44.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
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.
| Yafan Wang | Alison Van Uytvanck | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2014 | 3–1 | 75.0% | #180 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #287 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #136 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #199 | 1,554 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #116 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #112 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #106 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #70 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #44 | 1,649 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #48 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 2016 | 4–13 | 23.5% | #121 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #95 | 1,664 | 0 | 1 | 2017 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #76 | 1,619 | 0 | 1 |
| 2021 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #309 | 1,495 | 0 | 1 | 2018 | 18–21 | 46.2% | #49 | 1,650 | 0 | 2 |
| 2023 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 | 2019 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #47 | 1,713 | 0 | 4 |
| 2024 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #61 | 1,719 | 0 | 1 | 2020 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #64 | 1,663 | 0 | 4 |
| 2025 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #279 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 | 2021 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #58 | 1,752 | 0 | 5 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #72 | 1,679 | 0 | 5 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #344 | 1,682 | 0 | 5 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2024 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #229 | 1,607 | 0 | 5 |