VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs Goh

Akira vs Goh in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 49.4% of 10,741 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 counted10,741
Win rate49.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.1 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
Rectangle52.5%+3.10.0351,015
Breakable half fence51.0%+1.60.277996
Breakable full fence50.1%+0.80.5921,071
Octagon49.8%+0.50.7491,104
Full fence49.7%+0.40.7861,154
Fence and open49.5%+0.10.952495
Open48.9%-0.50.7391,013
Low fence48.2%-1.10.4261,142
Half fence47.8%-1.60.2891,050
Single wall47.5%-1.90.1881,120
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 8.70 on 9 df, p 0.465

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.7%1,154-0.40.850+1.90.365-1.30.559+1.50.475+2.20.285+0.20.927+0.90.684-2.80.197-0.10.970
Breakable full fence+0.40.85050.1%1,071+2.30.283-0.90.695+1.90.374+2.60.217+0.70.812+1.30.561-2.40.279+0.30.881
Half fence-1.90.365-2.30.28347.8%1,050-3.20.149-0.40.837+0.30.885-1.70.536-1.10.632-4.70.033-2.00.351
Breakable half fence+1.30.559+0.90.695+3.20.14951.0%996+2.80.204+3.50.108+1.50.583+2.10.338-1.50.499+1.20.588
Low fence-1.50.475-1.90.374+0.40.837-2.80.20448.2%1,142+0.80.722-1.20.643-0.60.775-4.30.048-1.60.457
Single wall-2.20.285-2.60.217-0.30.885-3.50.108-0.80.72247.5%1,120-2.00.459-1.40.529-5.00.021-2.30.274
Fence and open-0.20.927-0.70.812+1.70.536-1.50.583+1.20.643+2.00.45949.5%495+0.60.818-3.00.271-0.30.905
Open-0.90.684-1.30.561+1.10.632-2.10.338+0.60.775+1.40.529-0.60.81848.9%1,013-3.60.100-1.00.661
Rectangle+2.80.197+2.40.279+4.70.033+1.50.499+4.30.048+5.00.021+3.00.271+3.60.10052.5%1,015+2.70.215
Octagon+0.10.970-0.30.881+2.00.351-1.20.588+1.60.457+2.30.274+0.30.905+1.00.661-2.70.21549.8%1,104
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 counted5,387
Win rate49.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.0 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
Breakable half fence53.4%+4.00.056528
Rectangle52.0%+2.60.205540
Fence and open51.8%+2.30.476224
Low fence50.0%+0.60.780578
Breakable full fence49.9%+0.50.829519
Single wall49.1%-0.30.862558
Half fence49.0%-0.50.802576
Full fence47.1%-2.40.241548
Octagon47.0%-2.40.245523
Open46.9%-2.60.229497
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 9.20 on 9 df, p 0.419

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.1%548-2.80.356-1.90.529-6.30.038-2.90.327-2.00.501-4.70.235+0.20.949-5.00.102+0.00.989
Breakable full fence+2.80.35649.9%519+0.90.755-3.50.256-0.10.975+0.80.793-1.90.638+3.00.335-2.10.488+2.90.354
Half fence+1.90.529-0.90.75549.0%576-4.50.139-1.00.723-0.10.961-2.80.473+2.10.497-3.10.304+1.90.524
Breakable half fence+6.30.038+3.50.256+4.50.13953.4%528+3.40.257+4.30.156+1.60.683+6.50.037+1.40.653+6.40.039
Low fence+2.90.327+0.10.975+1.00.723-3.40.25750.0%578+0.90.763-1.80.650+3.10.308-2.00.496+3.00.326
Single wall+2.00.501-0.80.793+0.10.961-4.30.156-0.90.76349.1%558-2.70.498+2.20.471-2.90.331+2.10.497
Fence and open+4.70.235+1.90.638+2.80.473-1.60.683+1.80.650+2.70.49851.8%224+4.90.223-0.20.950+4.80.234
Open-0.20.949-3.00.335-2.10.497-6.50.037-3.10.308-2.20.471-4.90.22346.9%497-5.20.097-0.20.960
Rectangle+5.00.102+2.10.488+3.10.304-1.40.653+2.00.496+2.90.331+0.20.950+5.20.09752.0%540+5.00.103
Octagon-0.00.989-2.90.354-1.90.524-6.40.039-3.00.326-2.10.497-4.80.234+0.20.960-5.00.10347.0%523
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 counted4,993
Win rate49.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.0 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
Rectangle53.1%+4.00.075450
Octagon52.1%+3.00.137543
Full fence52.0%+2.90.130584
Open50.5%+1.40.514485
Breakable full fence50.3%+1.20.575497
Breakable half fence48.3%-0.80.718437
Low fence46.8%-2.40.255524
Fence and open46.1%-3.00.319254
Half fence45.7%-3.40.135444
Single wall45.3%-3.80.067523
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 14.79 on 9 df, p 0.097

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.0%584+1.80.566+6.30.044+3.80.233+5.30.078+6.70.025+6.00.111+1.50.616-1.10.736-0.10.983
Breakable full fence-1.80.56650.3%497+4.60.160+2.00.538+3.50.257+5.00.111+4.20.272-0.20.947-2.80.388-1.80.558
Half fence-6.30.044-4.60.16045.7%444-2.60.446-1.00.748+0.40.900-0.30.930-4.80.144-7.40.027-6.40.046
Breakable half fence-3.80.233-2.00.538+2.60.44648.3%437+1.50.637+3.00.359+2.20.573-2.20.499-4.80.151-3.80.233
Low fence-5.30.078-3.50.257+1.00.748-1.50.63746.8%524+1.40.640+0.70.856-3.80.233-6.30.048-5.40.080
Single wall-6.70.025-5.00.111-0.40.900-3.00.359-1.40.64045.3%523-0.70.844-5.20.099-7.80.015-6.80.026
Fence and open-6.00.111-4.20.272+0.30.930-2.20.573-0.70.856+0.70.84446.1%254-4.50.250-7.00.072-6.10.111
Open-1.50.616+0.20.947+4.80.144+2.20.499+3.80.233+5.20.099+4.50.25050.5%485-2.60.427-1.60.608
Rectangle+1.10.736+2.80.388+7.40.027+4.80.151+6.30.048+7.80.015+7.00.072+2.60.42753.1%450+1.00.755
Octagon+0.10.983+1.80.558+6.40.046+3.80.233+5.40.080+6.80.026+6.10.111+1.60.608-1.00.75552.1%543
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 counted361
Win rate51.5%
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 open70.6%+19.10.10717 ·
Half fence56.7%+5.20.55630 ·
Octagon55.3%+3.70.62638 ·
Open54.8%+3.30.69931 ·
Full fence54.5%+3.00.77022 ·
Single wall53.9%+2.30.75939 ·
Rectangle52.0%+0.50.96125 ·
Breakable full fence50.9%-0.60.92155 ·
Breakable half fence48.4%-3.10.71531 ·
Low fence42.5%-9.00.22640 ·
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 4.56 on 9 df, p 0.871

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.5%22+3.60.773-2.10.879+6.20.659+12.10.363+0.70.958-16.00.307-0.30.983+2.50.861-0.70.957
Breakable full fence-3.60.77350.9%55-5.80.611+2.50.822+8.40.418-2.90.779-19.70.154-3.90.726-1.10.928-4.30.679
Half fence+2.10.879+5.80.61156.7%30+8.30.517+14.20.241+2.80.815-13.90.345+1.80.886+4.70.729+1.40.908
Breakable half fence-6.20.659-2.50.822-8.30.51748.4%31+5.90.621-5.50.650-22.20.138-6.50.611-3.60.788-6.90.570
Low fence-12.10.363-8.40.418-14.20.241-5.90.62142.5%40-11.30.313-28.10.052-12.30.302-9.50.455-12.80.260
Single wall-0.70.958+2.90.779-2.80.815+5.50.650+11.30.31353.9%39-16.70.242-1.00.934+1.90.885-1.40.901
Fence and open+16.00.307+19.70.154+13.90.345+22.20.138+28.10.052+16.70.24270.6%17+15.80.286+18.60.228+15.30.284
Open+0.30.983+3.90.726-1.80.886+6.50.611+12.30.302+1.00.934-15.80.28654.8%31+2.80.832-0.40.972
Rectangle-2.50.861+1.10.928-4.70.729+3.60.788+9.50.455-1.90.885-18.60.228-2.80.83252.0%25-3.30.799
Octagon+0.70.957+4.30.679-1.40.908+6.90.570+12.80.260+1.40.901-15.30.284+0.40.972+3.30.79955.3%38
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.