VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs Dural

Akira vs Dural in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 45.7% of 1,664 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 9 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,664
Win rate45.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.0 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
Single wall51.7%+6.00.089176
Rectangle49.4%+3.70.332156
Fence and open49.3%+3.60.54069 ·
Breakable half fence45.9%+0.30.943172
Open44.3%-1.40.716158
Low fence44.0%-1.70.622182
Breakable full fence43.8%-1.90.624153
Full fence42.9%-2.80.429175
Half fence42.5%-3.20.388167
Octagon42.0%-3.60.307176
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 6.45 on 9 df, p 0.694

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence42.9%175-0.90.865+0.30.949-3.10.565-1.10.834-8.80.097-6.40.364-1.40.790-6.50.236+0.80.878
Breakable full fence+0.90.86543.8%153+1.30.818-2.10.699-0.20.976-7.90.152-5.50.448-0.50.927-5.60.327+1.70.750
Half fence-0.30.949-1.30.81842.5%167-3.40.527-1.40.786-9.20.088-6.80.342-1.80.745-6.80.217+0.50.930
Breakable half fence+3.10.565+2.10.699+3.40.52745.9%172+2.00.709-5.80.281-3.40.638+1.60.767-3.40.535+3.90.465
Low fence+1.10.834+0.20.976+1.40.786-2.00.70944.0%182-7.70.142-5.30.450-0.30.949-5.40.321+1.90.715
Single wall+8.80.097+7.90.152+9.20.088+5.80.281+7.70.14251.7%176+2.40.732+7.40.177+2.30.670+9.70.069
Fence and open+6.40.364+5.50.448+6.80.342+3.40.638+5.30.450-2.40.73249.3%69+5.00.489-0.10.991+7.20.305
Open+1.40.790+0.50.927+1.80.745-1.60.767+0.30.949-7.40.177-5.00.48944.3%158-5.10.369+2.20.677
Rectangle+6.50.236+5.60.327+6.80.217+3.40.535+5.40.321-2.30.670+0.10.991+5.10.36949.4%156+7.30.182
Octagon-0.80.878-1.70.750-0.50.930-3.90.465-1.90.715-9.70.069-7.20.305-2.20.677-7.30.18242.0%176
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 counted608
Win rate40.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
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
Fence and open52.2%+11.90.23623 ·
Octagon45.2%+4.90.49942 ·
Rectangle44.4%+4.10.51554 ·
Breakable full fence42.4%+2.10.73259 ·
Single wall41.0%+0.70.90861 ·
Full fence39.0%-1.30.79877 ·
Breakable half fence37.7%-2.60.66461 ·
Half fence36.8%-3.50.57757 ·
Low fence35.5%-4.80.36576 ·
Open34.2%-6.00.26173 ·
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

No stage in this matchup has been played 80 times yet, so none is tested 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 4.53 on 9 df, p 0.873

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence39.0%77-3.40.688+2.10.803+1.30.880+3.40.660-2.00.810-13.20.260+4.70.549-5.50.530-6.30.506
Breakable full fence+3.40.68842.4%59+5.50.543+4.70.602+6.80.417+1.40.877-9.80.423+8.10.339-2.10.824-2.90.775
Half fence-2.10.803-5.50.54336.8%57-0.90.923+1.30.876-4.10.645-15.30.207+2.60.759-7.60.415-8.40.400
Breakable half fence-1.30.880-4.70.602+0.90.92337.7%61+2.20.792-3.30.711-14.50.230+3.50.678-6.70.463-7.50.445
Low fence-3.40.660-6.80.417-1.30.876-2.20.79235.5%76-5.50.513-16.60.152+1.30.870-8.90.305-9.70.300
Single wall+2.00.810-1.40.877+4.10.645+3.30.711+5.50.51341.0%61-11.20.357+6.70.422-3.50.708-4.30.668
Fence and open+13.20.260+9.80.423+15.30.207+14.50.230+16.60.152+11.20.35752.2%23+17.90.123+7.70.534+6.90.592
Open-4.70.549-8.10.339-2.60.759-3.50.678-1.30.870-6.70.422-17.90.12334.2%73-10.20.243-11.00.243
Rectangle+5.50.530+2.10.824+7.60.415+6.70.463+8.90.305+3.50.708-7.70.534+10.20.24344.4%54-0.80.938
Octagon+6.30.506+2.90.775+8.40.400+7.50.445+9.70.300+4.30.668-6.90.592+11.00.243+0.80.93845.2%42
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 counted1,003
Win rate48.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.9 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
Single wall55.8%+6.90.136104
Open52.5%+3.60.49680
Rectangle52.0%+3.20.50698
Breakable half fence51.5%+2.60.577103
Low fence50.5%+1.60.726103
Fence and open47.7%-1.10.87944 ·
Full fence46.7%-2.10.67092
Breakable full fence46.1%-2.70.58991
Half fence45.3%-3.60.437106
Octagon40.9%-7.90.056127
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 7.37 on 9 df, p 0.598

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.7%92+0.60.937+1.50.838-4.70.511-3.80.601-9.00.207-1.00.914-5.80.451-5.30.465+5.80.393
Breakable full fence-0.60.93746.1%91+0.90.903-5.30.461-4.30.547-9.60.180-1.60.864-6.30.408-5.90.419+5.20.444
Half fence-1.50.838-0.90.90345.3%106-6.20.372-5.20.452-10.50.129-2.50.784-7.20.330-6.80.335+4.30.505
Breakable half fence+4.70.511+5.30.461+6.20.37251.5%103+1.00.889-4.30.534+3.70.679-1.00.889-0.60.934+10.50.112
Low fence+3.80.601+4.30.547+5.20.452-1.00.88950.5%103-5.30.446+2.80.759-2.00.787-1.60.825+9.60.148
Single wall+9.00.207+9.60.180+10.50.129+4.30.534+5.30.44655.8%104+8.00.370+3.30.659+3.70.595+14.80.025
Fence and open+1.00.914+1.60.864+2.50.784-3.70.679-2.80.759-8.00.37047.7%44-4.80.611-4.30.634+6.80.433
Open+5.80.451+6.30.408+7.20.330+1.00.889+2.00.787-3.30.659+4.80.61152.5%80+0.50.951+11.60.104
Rectangle+5.30.465+5.90.419+6.80.335+0.60.934+1.60.825-3.70.595+4.30.634-0.50.95152.0%98+11.10.098
Octagon-5.80.393-5.20.444-4.30.505-10.50.112-9.60.148-14.80.025-6.80.433-11.60.104-11.10.09840.9%127
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 counted53
Win rate47.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
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
Single wall72.7%+25.60.05611 ·
Open60.0%+12.80.5465 ·
Fence and open50.0%+2.80.9352 ·
Half fence50.0%+2.80.9064 ·
Rectangle50.0%+2.80.9064 ·
Octagon42.9%-4.30.8067 ·
Breakable half fence37.5%-9.70.5528 ·
Full fence33.3%-13.80.4716 ·
Low fence33.3%-13.80.6213 ·
Breakable full fence0.0%-47.20.0923 ·
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

No stage in this matchup has been played 80 times yet, so none is tested 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 6.97 on 9 df, p 0.640

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence33.3%6+33.30.257-16.70.598-4.20.872+0.01.000-39.40.115-16.70.673-26.70.376-16.70.598-9.50.725
Breakable full fence-33.30.2570.0%3-50.00.147-37.50.214-33.30.273-72.70.024-50.00.171-60.00.090-50.00.147-42.90.175
Half fence+16.70.598+50.00.14750.0%4+12.50.679+16.70.659-22.70.409+0.01.000-10.00.764+0.01.000+7.10.819
Breakable half fence+4.20.872+37.50.214-12.50.67937.5%8+4.20.898-35.20.125-12.50.747-22.50.429-12.50.679-5.40.833
Low fence-0.01.000+33.30.273-16.70.659-4.20.89833.3%3-39.40.207-16.70.709-26.70.465-16.70.659-9.50.778
Single wall+39.40.115+72.70.024+22.70.409+35.20.125+39.40.20772.7%11+22.70.522+12.70.611+22.70.409+29.90.205
Fence and open+16.70.673+50.00.171-0.01.000+12.50.747+16.70.709-22.70.52250.0%2-10.00.809+0.01.000+7.10.858
Open+26.70.376+60.00.090+10.00.764+22.50.429+26.70.465-12.70.611+10.00.80960.0%5+10.00.764+17.10.558
Rectangle+16.70.598+50.00.147-0.01.000+12.50.679+16.70.659-22.70.409-0.01.000-10.00.76450.0%4+7.10.819
Octagon+9.50.725+42.90.175-7.10.819+5.40.833+9.50.778-29.90.205-7.10.858-17.10.558-7.10.81942.9%7
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.