VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

Virtua Fighter 5 REVO · v1.10 · Character Matchup Winrates

Akira vs Brad

Akira vs Brad in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 50.1% of 8,310 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 10 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted8,310
Win rate50.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.2 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Akira's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence52.9%+2.80.079868
Octagon52.8%+2.80.082886
Rectangle52.3%+2.30.165833
Breakable full fence50.3%+0.20.884837
Full fence50.1%+0.00.999797
Fence and open49.9%-0.20.939393
Open48.6%-1.50.351871
Low fence48.3%-1.80.292775
Single wall48.0%-2.00.233793
Breakable half fence45.9%-4.20.012830
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 181. With a stage that survives correction: 13. Expected from chance alone: about 9.1.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Akira's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 16.00 on 9 df, p 0.067

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.1%797-0.20.924-2.80.250+4.20.093+1.80.474+2.00.421+0.20.951+1.50.541-2.30.358-2.80.258
Breakable full fence+0.20.92450.3%837-2.60.286+4.40.073+2.00.413+2.20.363+0.40.889+1.70.474-2.00.404-2.50.295
Half fence+2.80.250+2.60.28652.9%868+7.00.004+4.60.061+4.80.049+3.00.322+4.30.072+0.50.824+0.10.980
Breakable half fence-4.20.093-4.40.073-7.00.00445.9%830-2.40.345-2.10.387-4.00.194-2.70.272-6.40.009-6.90.004
Low fence-1.80.474-2.00.413-4.60.061+2.40.34548.3%775+0.20.933-1.60.602-0.30.901-4.10.102-4.60.063
Single wall-2.00.421-2.20.363-4.80.049+2.10.387-0.20.93348.0%793-1.80.553-0.50.832-4.30.083-4.80.051
Fence and open-0.20.951-0.40.889-3.00.322+4.00.194+1.60.602+1.80.55349.9%393+1.30.667-2.50.420-3.00.330
Open-1.50.541-1.70.474-4.30.072+2.70.272+0.30.901+0.50.832-1.30.66748.6%871-3.80.119-4.30.074
Rectangle+2.30.358+2.00.404-0.50.824+6.40.009+4.10.102+4.30.083+2.50.420+3.80.11952.3%833-0.50.842
Octagon+2.80.258+2.50.295-0.10.980+6.90.004+4.60.063+4.80.051+3.00.330+4.30.074+0.50.84252.8%886
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 180. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 12. Expected from chance alone: about 9.0.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted3,401
Win rate48.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.2 pts
Survive correction1
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Akira's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon56.1%+7.20.003374
Breakable full fence52.5%+3.60.165341
Rectangle50.3%+1.40.600326
Half fence49.6%+0.60.800349
Fence and open49.1%+0.10.971161
Open47.3%-1.70.502366
Breakable half fence47.1%-1.90.468340
Full fence45.3%-3.70.163327
Low fence44.9%-4.00.115343
Single wall44.6%-4.30.112305
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 158. With a stage that survives correction: 14. Expected from chance alone: about 7.9.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Akira's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 16.98 on 9 df, p 0.049

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.3%327-7.20.062-4.30.262-1.80.641+0.40.925+0.70.866-3.80.428-2.00.597-5.00.197-10.90.004
Breakable full fence+7.20.06252.5%341+2.90.443+5.40.156+7.60.047+7.90.045+3.40.474+5.20.165+2.20.572-3.70.327
Half fence+4.30.262-2.90.44349.6%349+2.50.510+4.70.218+5.00.203+0.50.916+2.30.538-0.70.848-6.60.077
Breakable half fence+1.80.641-5.40.156-2.50.51047.1%340+2.20.571+2.50.530-2.00.674-0.20.956-3.20.402-9.10.015
Low fence-0.40.925-7.60.047-4.70.218-2.20.57144.9%343+0.30.937-4.20.381-2.40.527-5.40.161-11.20.003
Single wall-0.70.866-7.90.045-5.00.203-2.50.530-0.30.93744.6%305-4.50.356-2.70.488-5.70.151-11.60.003
Fence and open+3.80.428-3.40.474-0.50.916+2.00.674+4.20.381+4.50.35649.1%161+1.80.703-1.20.797-7.10.132
Open+2.00.597-5.20.165-2.30.538+0.20.956+2.40.527+2.70.488-1.80.70347.3%366-3.00.425-8.90.016
Rectangle+5.00.197-2.20.572+0.70.848+3.20.402+5.40.161+5.70.151+1.20.797+3.00.42550.3%326-5.80.122
Octagon+10.90.004+3.70.327+6.60.077+9.10.015+11.20.003+11.60.003+7.10.132+8.90.016+5.80.12256.1%374
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 152. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 11. Expected from chance alone: about 7.6.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted4,107
Win rate50.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-8.3 pts
Survive correction1
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Akira's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Rectangle53.4%+3.30.147436
Half fence53.4%+3.30.148438
Full fence52.8%+2.60.287381
Low fence52.1%+1.90.445361
Fence and open50.5%+0.40.916186
Single wall50.1%-0.00.987415
Octagon49.7%-0.50.825441
Breakable full fence49.1%-1.00.665405
Open48.1%-2.10.372420
Breakable half fence41.8%-8.3<0.001409
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 157. With a stage that survives correction: 11. Expected from chance alone: about 7.9.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Akira's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 17.64 on 9 df, p 0.040

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.8%381+3.60.310-0.70.848+10.90.002+0.70.853+2.60.457+2.20.620+4.70.188-0.70.845+3.10.376
Breakable full fence-3.60.31049.1%405-4.30.213+7.30.036-2.90.416-1.00.778-1.40.752+1.00.765-4.30.212-0.50.879
Half fence+0.70.848+4.30.21353.4%438+11.6<0.001+1.30.704+3.30.334+2.90.509+5.30.119-0.00.996+3.80.264
Breakable half fence-10.90.002-7.30.036-11.6<0.00141.8%409-10.30.004-8.30.017-8.70.047-6.30.069-11.6<0.001-7.80.022
Low fence-0.70.853+2.90.416-1.30.704+10.30.00452.1%361+2.00.586+1.50.733+4.00.267-1.40.701+2.40.496
Single wall-2.60.457+1.00.778-3.30.334+8.30.017-2.00.58650.1%415-0.40.925+2.00.558-3.30.333+0.50.893
Fence and open-2.20.620+1.40.752-2.90.509+8.70.047-1.50.733+0.40.92550.5%186+2.40.579-2.90.507+0.90.841
Open-4.70.188-1.00.765-5.30.119+6.30.069-4.00.267-2.00.558-2.40.57948.1%420-5.30.118-1.60.646
Rectangle+0.70.845+4.30.212+0.00.996+11.6<0.001+1.40.701+3.30.333+2.90.507+5.30.11853.4%436+3.80.263
Octagon-3.10.376+0.50.879-3.80.264+7.80.022-2.40.496-0.50.893-0.90.841+1.60.646-3.80.26349.7%441
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 152. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 8. Expected from chance alone: about 7.6.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted802
Win rate54.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches9.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Akira's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence64.2%+9.80.06181
Breakable half fence61.7%+7.40.16081
Open56.5%+2.10.68085
Full fence56.2%+1.80.71589
Octagon54.9%+0.60.92071 ·
Rectangle54.9%+0.60.92071 ·
Single wall50.7%-3.70.50873 ·
Fence and open50.0%-4.40.54146 ·
Breakable full fence47.2%-7.10.14891
Low fence45.1%-9.30.10071 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches: p on its own only, not corrected, coloured or ranked

Matchups with a stage played at least 80 times: 23. With a stage that survives correction: 1. Expected from chance alone: about 1.2.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Akira's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.29 on 9 df, p 0.327

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.2%89+8.90.231-8.00.287-5.50.463+11.10.162+5.50.485+6.20.495-0.30.969+1.20.874+1.20.874
Breakable full fence-8.90.23147.2%91-16.90.026-14.50.057+2.20.782-3.40.662-2.80.761-9.20.221-7.70.332-7.70.332
Half fence+8.00.287+16.90.02664.2%81+2.50.745+19.10.018+13.50.090+14.20.118+7.70.309+9.30.245+9.30.245
Breakable half fence+5.50.463+14.50.057-2.50.74561.7%81+16.70.040+11.10.167+11.70.199+5.30.491+6.80.396+6.80.396
Low fence-11.10.162-2.20.782-19.10.018-16.70.04045.1%71-5.60.500-4.90.602-11.40.156-9.90.240-9.90.240
Single wall-5.50.485+3.40.662-13.50.090-11.10.167+5.60.50050.7%73+0.70.942-5.80.467-4.20.610-4.20.610
Fence and open-6.20.495+2.80.761-14.20.118-11.70.199+4.90.602-0.70.94250.0%46-6.50.478-4.90.602-4.90.602
Open+0.30.969+9.20.221-7.70.309-5.30.491+11.40.156+5.80.467+6.50.47856.5%85+1.50.847+1.50.847
Rectangle-1.20.874+7.70.332-9.30.245-6.80.396+9.90.240+4.20.610+4.90.602-1.50.84754.9%71+0.01.000
Octagon-1.20.874+7.70.332-9.30.245-6.80.396+9.90.240+4.20.610+4.90.602-1.50.847-0.01.00054.9%71
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison

Matchups with two stages each played at least 80 times: 20. With a stage-against-stage difference that survives correction: 2. Expected from chance alone: about 1.0.

How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.