VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs El Blaze

Akira vs El Blaze in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 47.3% of 7,014 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 counted7,014
Win rate47.3%
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
Low fence49.0%+1.70.338708
Octagon48.9%+1.60.359707
Breakable full fence48.8%+1.40.455603
Rectangle48.2%+0.90.599732
Half fence47.9%+0.60.727680
Breakable half fence47.5%+0.20.892713
Fence and open46.6%-0.70.786403
Full fence45.9%-1.40.443701
Open45.4%-1.90.280731
Single wall43.1%-4.20.023668
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 8.77 on 9 df, p 0.458

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.9%701-2.80.309-2.00.455-1.60.544-3.10.248+2.80.294-0.70.818+0.50.844-2.30.385-3.00.259
Breakable full fence+2.80.30948.8%603+0.80.771+1.20.661-0.20.927+5.70.044+2.10.512+3.30.224+0.50.846-0.20.947
Half fence+2.00.455-0.80.77147.9%680+0.40.883-1.10.690+4.80.075+1.30.681+2.50.342-0.30.915-1.00.710
Breakable half fence+1.60.544-1.20.661-0.40.88347.5%713-1.50.580+4.40.098+0.90.773+2.10.418-0.70.796-1.40.599
Low fence+3.10.248+0.20.927+1.10.690+1.50.58049.0%708+5.90.028+2.40.449+3.60.172+0.80.765+0.10.978
Single wall-2.80.294-5.70.044-4.80.075-4.40.098-5.90.02843.1%668-3.50.259-2.30.386-5.10.055-5.80.030
Fence and open+0.70.818-2.10.512-1.30.681-0.90.773-2.40.449+3.50.25946.6%403+1.20.690-1.60.611-2.30.463
Open-0.50.844-3.30.224-2.50.342-2.10.418-3.60.172+2.30.386-1.20.69045.4%731-2.80.282-3.50.181
Rectangle+2.30.385-0.50.846+0.30.915+0.70.796-0.80.765+5.10.055+1.60.611+2.80.28248.2%732-0.70.786
Octagon+3.00.259+0.20.947+1.00.710+1.40.599-0.10.978+5.80.030+2.30.463+3.50.181+0.70.78648.9%707
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 counted3,600
Win rate47.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.9 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
Breakable full fence51.4%+3.90.150315
Octagon50.8%+3.20.183378
Low fence50.1%+2.60.292373
Half fence47.0%-0.60.816364
Rectangle46.6%-1.00.682378
Full fence46.5%-1.00.688346
Breakable half fence46.5%-1.10.654383
Open45.5%-2.00.423345
Fence and open45.1%-2.40.476206
Single wall42.7%-4.90.070314
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 9.01 on 9 df, p 0.436

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.5%346-4.90.208-0.50.905+0.10.988-3.60.334+3.90.320+1.40.752+1.00.787-0.00.994-4.30.252
Breakable full fence+4.90.20851.4%315+4.50.247+5.00.193+1.30.735+8.80.028+6.30.161+5.90.128+4.90.202+0.60.868
Half fence+0.50.905-4.50.24747.0%364+0.50.890-3.10.391+4.30.261+1.80.673+1.50.695+0.40.909-3.80.299
Breakable half fence-0.10.988-5.00.193-0.50.89046.5%383-3.60.314+3.80.315+1.30.758+1.00.794-0.10.981-4.30.233
Low fence+3.60.334-1.30.735+3.10.391+3.60.31450.1%373+7.50.051+5.00.250+4.60.215+3.60.327-0.70.857
Single wall-3.90.320-8.80.028-4.30.261-3.80.315-7.50.05142.7%314-2.50.579-2.80.465-3.90.306-8.10.033
Fence and open-1.40.752-6.30.161-1.80.673-1.30.758-5.00.250+2.50.57945.1%206-0.40.934-1.40.743-5.60.192
Open-1.00.787-5.90.128-1.50.695-1.00.794-4.60.215+2.80.465+0.40.93445.5%345-1.10.776-5.30.155
Rectangle+0.00.994-4.90.202-0.40.909+0.10.981-3.60.327+3.90.306+1.40.743+1.10.77646.6%378-4.20.244
Octagon+4.30.252-0.60.868+3.80.299+4.30.233+0.70.857+8.10.033+5.60.192+5.30.155+4.20.24450.8%378
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 counted2,900
Win rate47.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.7 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
Breakable half fence50.5%+3.40.240273
Rectangle50.5%+3.30.216311
Fence and open49.7%+2.50.507163
Half fence47.3%+0.20.958262
Low fence47.1%-0.10.980276
Open46.8%-0.40.884344
Full fence46.1%-1.00.704297
Octagon45.2%-1.90.491283
Breakable full fence44.6%-2.60.391249
Single wall43.5%-3.70.173308
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 5.93 on 9 df, p 0.747

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.1%297+1.60.717-1.20.777-4.40.291-1.00.815+2.60.517-3.60.464-0.70.864-4.30.283+0.90.828
Breakable full fence-1.60.71744.6%249-2.80.533-6.00.172-2.50.562+1.10.800-5.10.309-2.20.592-5.90.165-0.70.880
Half fence+1.20.777+2.80.53347.3%262-3.20.456+0.20.958+3.80.361-2.40.635+0.50.898-3.10.452+2.10.623
Breakable half fence+4.40.291+6.00.172+3.20.45650.5%273+3.50.419+7.00.090+0.90.863+3.80.355+0.10.987+5.30.209
Low fence+1.00.815+2.50.562-0.20.958-3.50.41947.1%276+3.60.383-2.60.599+0.30.941-3.40.413+1.90.657
Single wall-2.60.517-1.10.800-3.80.361-7.00.090-3.60.38343.5%308-6.20.200-3.30.399-7.00.082-1.70.674
Fence and open+3.60.464+5.10.309+2.40.635-0.90.863+2.60.599+6.20.20049.7%163+2.90.543-0.80.870+4.50.363
Open+0.70.864+2.20.592-0.50.898-3.80.355-0.30.941+3.30.399-2.90.54346.8%344-3.70.347+1.60.694
Rectangle+4.30.283+5.90.165+3.10.452-0.10.987+3.40.413+7.00.082+0.80.870+3.70.34750.5%311+5.20.201
Octagon-0.90.828+0.70.880-2.10.623-5.30.209-1.90.657+1.70.674-4.50.363-1.60.694-5.20.20145.2%283
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 counted514
Win rate46.3%
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
Half fence57.4%+11.10.08454 ·
Octagon56.5%+10.20.14546 ·
Breakable full fence53.9%+7.50.32639 ·
Low fence50.9%+4.50.45759 ·
Rectangle46.5%+0.20.97743 ·
Single wall43.5%-2.80.68746 ·
Full fence41.4%-4.90.42558 ·
Fence and open41.2%-5.10.53534 ·
Breakable half fence40.4%-6.00.33957 ·
Open33.3%-13.00.07942 ·
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 10.69 on 9 df, p 0.298

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence41.4%58-12.50.227-16.00.090+1.00.911-9.50.304-2.10.830+0.20.985+8.10.413-5.10.607-15.10.125
Breakable full fence+12.50.22753.9%39-3.60.733+13.50.192+3.00.771+10.40.340+12.70.280+20.50.063+7.30.507-2.70.805
Half fence+16.00.090+3.60.73357.4%54+17.10.072+6.60.485+13.90.165+16.20.138+24.10.019+10.90.286+0.90.929
Breakable half fence-1.00.911-13.50.192-17.10.07240.4%57-10.50.257-3.10.749-0.80.938+7.00.476-6.20.538-16.20.102
Low fence+9.50.304-3.00.771-6.60.485+10.50.25750.9%59+7.40.453+9.70.368+17.50.080+4.30.665-5.70.563
Single wall+2.10.830-10.40.340-13.90.165+3.10.749-7.40.45343.5%46+2.30.837+10.20.329-3.00.774-13.00.211
Fence and open-0.20.985-12.70.280-16.20.138+0.80.938-9.70.368-2.30.83741.2%34+7.80.481-5.30.640-15.30.175
Open-8.10.413-20.50.063-24.10.019-7.00.476-17.50.080-10.20.329-7.80.48133.3%42-13.20.215-23.20.029
Rectangle+5.10.607-7.30.507-10.90.286+6.20.538-4.30.665+3.00.774+5.30.640+13.20.21546.5%43-10.00.345
Octagon+15.10.125+2.70.805-0.90.929+16.20.102+5.70.563+13.00.211+15.30.175+23.20.029+10.00.34556.5%46
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.