VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs Eileen

Akira vs Eileen in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 47.8% of 3,667 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 counted3,667
Win rate47.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.5 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
Fence and open52.1%+4.30.195211
Open51.3%+3.50.146388
Low fence51.2%+3.40.167367
Full fence49.5%+1.70.465408
Single wall49.3%+1.50.566345
Rectangle47.3%-0.50.857338
Octagon46.7%-1.10.653362
Breakable half fence46.4%-1.40.571360
Half fence45.1%-2.60.288361
Breakable full fence42.3%-5.50.025369
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 11.95 on 9 df, p 0.216

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.5%408+7.20.043+4.40.227+3.10.388-1.70.633+0.20.949-2.60.536-1.80.616+2.20.555+2.80.434
Breakable full fence-7.20.04342.3%369-2.90.433-4.10.264-8.90.015-7.00.061-9.80.022-9.00.013-5.10.176-4.40.230
Half fence-4.40.227+2.90.43345.1%361-1.20.739-6.10.101-4.10.273-7.00.107-6.10.093-2.20.563-1.50.679
Breakable half fence-3.10.388+4.10.264+1.20.73946.4%360-4.80.192-2.90.443-5.70.185-4.90.180-0.90.802-0.30.936
Low fence+1.70.633+8.90.015+6.10.101+4.80.19251.2%367+1.90.603-0.90.834-0.10.986+3.90.302+4.50.220
Single wall-0.20.949+7.00.061+4.10.273+2.90.443-1.90.60349.3%345-2.90.513-2.00.586+1.90.612+2.60.491
Fence and open+2.60.536+9.80.022+7.00.107+5.70.185+0.90.834+2.90.51352.1%211+0.80.843+4.80.274+5.40.208
Open+1.80.616+9.00.013+6.10.093+4.90.180+0.10.986+2.00.586-0.80.84351.3%388+4.00.288+4.60.208
Rectangle-2.20.555+5.10.176+2.20.563+0.90.802-3.90.302-1.90.612-4.80.274-4.00.28847.3%338+0.70.863
Octagon-2.80.434+4.40.230+1.50.679+0.30.936-4.50.220-2.60.491-5.40.208-4.60.208-0.70.86346.7%362
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 counted2,098
Win rate45.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.2 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
Single wall52.8%+7.20.027212
Open49.8%+4.10.183231
Low fence49.5%+3.80.259196
Fence and open48.4%+2.70.530124
Full fence48.3%+2.70.377240
Half fence42.6%-3.10.362195
Octagon41.6%-4.10.236190
Rectangle41.2%-4.40.194194
Breakable full fence41.0%-4.70.126232
Breakable half fence40.7%-4.90.147194
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 15.74 on 9 df, p 0.072

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.3%240+7.40.107+5.80.230+7.60.113-1.20.810-4.50.340-0.10.992-1.40.753+7.10.140+6.80.162
Breakable full fence-7.40.10741.0%232-1.60.736+0.20.962-8.50.077-11.90.012-7.40.177-8.80.056-0.30.952-0.60.896
Half fence-5.80.230+1.60.73642.6%195+1.80.712-6.90.170-10.30.038-5.80.308-7.20.137+1.30.791+1.00.845
Breakable half fence-7.60.113-0.20.962-1.80.71240.7%194-8.80.082-12.10.015-7.70.179-9.10.062-0.50.918-0.90.864
Low fence+1.20.810+8.50.077+6.90.170+8.80.08249.5%196-3.30.500+1.10.848-0.30.952+8.20.102+7.90.119
Single wall+4.50.340+11.90.012+10.30.038+12.10.015+3.30.50052.8%212+4.40.432+3.00.522+11.60.019+11.20.024
Fence and open+0.10.992+7.40.177+5.80.308+7.70.179-1.10.848-4.40.43248.4%124-1.40.802+7.20.210+6.80.235
Open+1.40.753+8.80.056+7.20.137+9.10.062+0.30.952-3.00.522+1.40.80249.8%231+8.50.078+8.20.093
Rectangle-7.10.140+0.30.952-1.30.791+0.50.918-8.20.102-11.60.019-7.20.210-8.50.07841.2%194-0.30.946
Octagon-6.80.162+0.60.896-1.00.845+0.90.864-7.90.119-11.20.024-6.80.235-8.20.093+0.30.94641.6%190
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 counted1,161
Win rate49.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-8.1 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
Low fence55.6%+6.40.115135
Fence and open55.4%+6.20.26874 ·
Octagon52.2%+3.10.496111
Breakable half fence51.6%+2.40.567126
Rectangle51.0%+1.90.70496
Open49.1%-0.10.984110
Full fence48.5%-0.70.871136
Half fence48.1%-1.00.798135
Breakable full fence46.2%-2.90.55493
Single wall41.0%-8.10.09895
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 6.83 on 9 df, p 0.655

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.5%136+2.30.733+0.40.950-3.10.621-7.00.247+7.50.261-6.90.341-0.60.930-2.50.706-3.70.561
Breakable full fence-2.30.73346.2%93-1.90.776-5.30.434-9.30.166+5.20.474-9.20.239-2.90.685-4.80.509-6.00.392
Half fence-0.40.950+1.90.77648.1%135-3.40.579-7.40.223+7.10.287-7.30.316-0.90.883-2.90.665-4.10.522
Breakable half fence+3.10.621+5.30.434+3.40.57951.6%126-4.00.521+10.50.120-3.80.601+2.50.702+0.60.936-0.70.919
Low fence+7.00.247+9.30.166+7.40.223+4.00.52155.6%135+14.50.030+0.10.983+6.50.313+4.50.498+3.30.605
Single wall-7.50.261-5.20.474-7.10.287-10.50.120-14.50.03041.0%95-14.40.064-8.00.249-10.00.166-11.20.108
Fence and open+6.90.341+9.20.239+7.30.316+3.80.601-0.10.983+14.40.06455.4%74+6.30.401+4.40.572+3.20.674
Open+0.60.930+2.90.685+0.90.883-2.50.702-6.50.313+8.00.249-6.30.40149.1%110-1.90.780-3.20.638
Rectangle+2.50.706+4.80.509+2.90.665-0.60.936-4.50.498+10.00.166-4.40.572+1.90.78051.0%96-1.20.862
Octagon+3.70.561+6.00.392+4.10.522+0.70.919-3.30.605+11.20.108-3.20.674+3.20.638+1.20.86252.2%111
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 counted408
Win rate54.9%
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 open69.2%+14.30.29113 ·
Rectangle64.6%+9.70.15148 ·
Open63.8%+8.90.19147 ·
Full fence62.5%+7.60.36832 ·
Breakable half fence57.5%+2.60.72840 ·
Octagon52.5%-2.40.67861 ·
Single wall50.0%-4.90.52438 ·
Half fence48.4%-6.50.44831 ·
Low fence44.4%-10.50.18736 ·
Breakable full fence40.9%-14.00.04844 ·
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 11.36 on 9 df, p 0.252

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence62.5%32+21.60.063+14.10.260+5.00.667+18.10.137+12.50.294-6.70.669-1.30.904-2.10.849+10.00.354
Breakable full fence-21.60.06340.9%44-7.50.521-16.60.129-3.50.750-9.10.409-28.30.072-22.90.029-23.70.023-11.60.242
Half fence-14.10.260+7.50.52148.4%31-9.10.445+4.00.747-1.60.894-20.80.205-15.40.177-16.20.154-4.10.712
Breakable half fence-5.00.667+16.60.129+9.10.44557.5%40+13.10.256+7.50.507-11.70.453-6.30.546-7.10.497+5.00.619
Low fence-18.10.137+3.50.750-4.00.747-13.10.25644.4%36-5.60.632-24.80.125-19.40.078-20.10.066-8.00.446
Single wall-12.50.294+9.10.409+1.60.894-7.50.507+5.60.63250.0%38-19.20.229-13.80.200-14.60.173-2.50.812
Fence and open+6.70.669+28.30.072+20.80.205+11.70.453+24.80.125+19.20.22969.2%13+5.40.718+4.70.754+16.80.269
Open+1.30.904+22.90.029+15.40.177+6.30.546+19.40.078+13.80.200-5.40.71863.8%47-0.80.939+11.40.236
Rectangle+2.10.849+23.70.023+16.20.154+7.10.497+20.10.066+14.60.173-4.70.754+0.80.93964.6%48+12.10.203
Octagon-10.00.354+11.60.242+4.10.712-5.00.619+8.00.446+2.50.812-16.80.269-11.40.236-12.10.20352.5%61
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.