H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 10:32 UTC
Yulia Putintseva vs Kai-Chen Chang H2H: 1-0
Yulia Putintseva holds a 1–0 lead over Kai-Chen Chang in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Yulia Putintseva leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Yulia Putintseva won the 2018 Taipei fourth round 6-3 7-6(3).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
KAZ
Age 31
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
TPE
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2018* | Taipei | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Yulia Putintseva | 6-3 7-6(3) | Kai-Chen Chang | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yulia Putintseva | #82 | #20 | 2,138 | 1,991 | 261 | 255 | 50.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| Kai-Chen Chang | #1,233 | #82 | 808 | 1,647 | 32 | 59 | 35.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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.
| Yulia Putintseva | Kai-Chen Chang | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #728 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #94 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #123 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #117 | 1,564 | 0 | 0 |
| 2013 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #109 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #148 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 2014 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #115 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 9–11 | 45.0% | #86 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #77 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #621 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 |
| 2016 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #33 | 1,655 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #134 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 20–27 | 42.6% | #52 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 | 2016 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #131 | 1,604 | 0 | 0 |
| 2018 | 17–19 | 47.2% | #44 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 | 2017 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #219 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #34 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 | 2018 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #401 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 15–10 | 60.0% | #28 | 1,836 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #42 | 1,816 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #51 | 1,740 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 22–22 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,744 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 34–17 | 66.7% | #29 | 1,934 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 15–26 | 36.6% | #71 | 1,740 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #82 | 1,783 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |