H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Yafan Wang vs Venus Williams H2H: 0-1
Venus Williams holds a 1–0 lead over Yafan Wang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Venus Williams leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Venus Williams won the 2015 Hong Kong fourth round 6-0 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.
CHN
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 46
Right-Handed
185 cm / 6'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 16, 2015* | Hong Kong | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Venus Williams | 6-0 6-2 | Yafan Wang | 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 |
| Venus Williams | #467 | #1 | 7,452 | 2,362 | 768 | 288 | 72.7% | 7 | 9 | 1 | 20 | 10 | 47 |
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 | Venus Williams | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1994 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #136 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #205 | 1,561 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #116 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #216 | 1,571 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #170 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 20–13 | 60.6% | #22 | 1,851 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 11–12 | 47.8% | #70 | 1,617 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 50–13 | 79.4% | #5 | 2,094 | 0 | 2 |
| 2019 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #48 | 1,718 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 57–11 | 83.8% | #3 | 2,258 | 0 | 8 |
| 2020 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #95 | 1,664 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 35–4 | 89.7% | #3 | 2,321 | 2 | 13 |
| 2021 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #309 | 1,495 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 46–6 | 88.5% | #3 | 2,338 | 4 | 19 |
| 2023 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #100 | 1,627 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 63–9 | 87.5% | #2 | 2,297 | 4 | 26 |
| 2024 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #61 | 1,719 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 24–5 | 82.8% | #11 | 2,257 | 4 | 27 |
| 2025 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #279 | 1,697 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 40–13 | 75.5% | #9 | 2,072 | 4 | 29 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 34–10 | 77.3% | #10 | 2,085 | 5 | 31 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 13–6 | 68.4% | #46 | 2,007 | 5 | 31 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 46–10 | 82.1% | #8 | 2,048 | 6 | 34 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 37–10 | 78.7% | #6 | 2,133 | 7 | 37 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #6 | 1,981 | 7 | 39 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 38–7 | 84.4% | #5 | 2,057 | 7 | 41 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 8–4 | 66.7% | #102 | 1,994 | 7 | 41 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 22–8 | 73.3% | #24 | 2,007 | 7 | 42 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #47 | 1,889 | 7 | 42 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 33–15 | 68.8% | #18 | 1,874 | 7 | 43 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 39–14 | 73.6% | #7 | 1,957 | 7 | 46 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2016 | 24–14 | 63.2% | #17 | 1,830 | 7 | 47 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #5 | 1,935 | 7 | 47 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2018 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #39 | 1,867 | 7 | 47 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2019 | 20–15 | 57.1% | #52 | 1,827 | 7 | 47 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2020 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #79 | 1,717 | 7 | 47 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2021 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #318 | 1,649 | 7 | 47 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2022 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #1000 | 1,603 | 7 | 47 |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2023 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #412 | 1,594 | 7 | 47 |