VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs Jacky

Akira vs Jacky in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 48.8% of 19,362 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 counted19,362
Win rate48.8%
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
Fence and open52.0%+3.10.050922
Open50.2%+1.40.1961,997
Breakable half fence49.2%+0.40.7021,973
Low fence49.1%+0.30.7991,862
Full fence48.7%-0.10.9272,016
Single wall48.6%-0.20.8691,894
Rectangle48.5%-0.30.8082,037
Octagon48.5%-0.30.7961,898
Breakable full fence47.7%-1.10.3071,881
Half fence47.5%-1.30.2301,986
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 7.70 on 9 df, p 0.564

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.7%2,016+1.00.523+1.20.456-0.50.750-0.40.815+0.10.959-3.20.103-1.50.353+0.20.920+0.20.908
Breakable full fence-1.00.52347.7%1,881+0.20.923-1.50.343-1.40.392-0.90.563-4.30.034-2.50.121-0.90.589-0.80.606
Half fence-1.20.456-0.20.92347.5%1,986-1.70.290-1.60.335-1.10.495-4.40.027-2.60.095-1.00.518-1.00.536
Breakable half fence+0.50.750+1.50.343+1.70.29049.2%1,973+0.10.937+0.60.715-2.70.170-1.00.545+0.70.675+0.70.668
Low fence+0.40.815+1.40.392+1.60.335-0.10.93749.1%1,862+0.50.778-2.90.155-1.10.499+0.50.738+0.60.730
Single wall-0.10.959+0.90.563+1.10.495-0.60.715-0.50.77848.6%1,894-3.30.098-1.60.334+0.10.962+0.10.950
Fence and open+3.20.103+4.30.034+4.40.027+2.70.170+2.90.155+3.30.09852.0%922+1.80.372+3.40.087+3.40.088
Open+1.50.353+2.50.121+2.60.095+1.00.545+1.10.499+1.60.334-1.80.37250.2%1,997+1.60.302+1.70.303
Rectangle-0.20.920+0.90.589+1.00.518-0.70.675-0.50.738-0.10.962-3.40.087-1.60.30248.5%2,037+0.00.986
Octagon-0.20.908+0.80.606+1.00.536-0.70.668-0.60.730-0.10.950-3.40.088-1.70.303-0.00.98648.5%1,898
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 counted9,321
Win rate47.4%
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
Fence and open51.4%+4.00.080455
Low fence50.0%+2.60.100920
Breakable half fence49.7%+2.30.135974
Open48.8%+1.40.381943
Single wall47.4%-0.00.986905
Full fence46.6%-0.80.606952
Half fence46.5%-1.00.522975
Rectangle46.0%-1.50.3191,014
Octagon45.5%-1.90.228862
Breakable full fence45.0%-2.40.136877
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 12.84 on 9 df, p 0.170

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.6%952+1.60.493+0.20.938-3.00.180-3.40.146-0.80.741-4.80.093-2.10.351+0.70.762+1.20.620
Breakable full fence-1.60.49345.0%877-1.40.540-4.70.045-5.00.035-2.40.317-6.40.027-3.70.110-0.90.690-0.40.855
Half fence-0.20.938+1.40.54046.5%975-3.20.154-3.50.123-0.90.683-5.00.080-2.30.309+0.50.821+1.00.672
Breakable half fence+3.00.180+4.70.045+3.20.15449.7%974-0.30.893+2.30.321-1.70.541+0.90.690+3.70.096+4.20.071
Low fence+3.40.146+5.00.035+3.50.123+0.30.89350.0%920+2.60.267-1.40.618+1.20.599+4.00.075+4.50.056
Single wall+0.80.741+2.40.317+0.90.683-2.30.321-2.60.26747.4%905-4.00.161-1.40.554+1.40.526+1.90.417
Fence and open+4.80.093+6.40.027+5.00.080+1.70.541+1.40.618+4.00.16151.4%455+2.60.353+5.50.052+6.00.040
Open+2.10.351+3.70.110+2.30.309-0.90.690-1.20.599+1.40.554-2.60.35348.8%943+2.80.211+3.30.160
Rectangle-0.70.762+0.90.690-0.50.821-3.70.096-4.00.075-1.40.526-5.50.052-2.80.21146.0%1,014+0.50.835
Octagon-1.20.620+0.40.855-1.00.672-4.20.071-4.50.056-1.90.417-6.00.040-3.30.160-0.50.83545.5%862
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 counted8,712
Win rate49.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches2.8 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
Fence and open52.4%+2.80.246414
Rectangle51.7%+2.10.195884
Open51.4%+1.80.253918
Octagon50.3%+0.70.684879
Single wall50.1%+0.50.764868
Breakable full fence49.2%-0.40.806847
Full fence49.0%-0.70.671925
Breakable half fence48.1%-1.50.344875
Half fence48.0%-1.70.292876
Low fence47.9%-1.70.293835
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 7.20 on 9 df, p 0.617

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.0%925-0.30.913+1.00.663+0.90.716+1.10.654-1.10.629-3.50.244-2.50.294-2.70.247-1.30.578
Breakable full fence+0.30.91349.2%847+1.30.593+1.10.643+1.30.586-0.90.715-3.20.288-2.20.359-2.50.305-1.10.662
Half fence-1.00.663-1.30.59348.0%876-0.20.944+0.10.986-2.20.365-4.50.134-3.50.142-3.80.116-2.30.327
Breakable half fence-0.90.716-1.10.643+0.20.94448.1%875+0.20.931-2.00.403-4.30.149-3.30.162-3.60.133-2.20.363
Low fence-1.10.654-1.30.586-0.10.986-0.20.93147.9%835-2.20.362-4.50.133-3.50.142-3.80.116-2.40.325
Single wall+1.10.629+0.90.715+2.20.365+2.00.403+2.20.36250.1%868-2.30.441-1.30.583-1.60.508-0.20.944
Fence and open+3.50.244+3.20.288+4.50.134+4.30.149+4.50.133+2.30.44152.4%414+1.00.736+0.70.809+2.10.475
Open+2.50.294+2.20.359+3.50.142+3.30.162+3.50.142+1.30.583-1.00.73651.4%918-0.30.905+1.10.631
Rectangle+2.70.247+2.50.305+3.80.116+3.60.133+3.80.116+1.60.508-0.70.809+0.30.90551.7%884+1.40.553
Octagon+1.30.578+1.10.662+2.30.327+2.20.363+2.40.325+0.20.944-2.10.475-1.10.631-1.40.55350.3%879
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 counted1,329
Win rate53.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.1 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
Full fence61.1%+8.10.043139
Octagon55.4%+2.40.527157
Breakable full fence54.1%+1.10.770157
Breakable half fence53.2%+0.20.967124
Fence and open52.8%-0.20.97453 ·
Half fence52.6%-0.50.911135
Open51.5%-1.60.697136
Low fence50.5%-2.60.577107
Rectangle47.5%-5.60.165139
Single wall47.1%-5.90.170121
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 7.92 on 9 df, p 0.542

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence61.1%139+7.00.223+8.60.153+7.90.194+10.70.094+14.00.023+8.30.295+9.70.106+13.70.022+5.70.318
Breakable full fence-7.00.22354.1%157+1.60.792+0.90.879+3.70.557+7.00.245+1.30.869+2.70.648+6.70.253-1.30.821
Half fence-8.60.153-1.60.79252.6%135-0.60.919+2.10.742+5.50.381-0.20.977+1.10.853+5.10.398-2.80.630
Breakable half fence-7.90.194-0.90.879+0.60.91953.2%124+2.80.676+6.10.338+0.40.961+1.80.777+5.80.352-2.20.715
Low fence-10.70.094-3.70.557-2.10.742-2.80.67650.5%107+3.40.612-2.40.778-1.00.877+3.00.642-4.90.429
Single wall-14.00.023-7.00.245-5.50.381-6.10.338-3.40.61247.1%121-5.70.487-4.40.485-0.40.952-8.30.169
Fence and open-8.30.295-1.30.869+0.20.977-0.40.961+2.40.778+5.70.48752.8%53+1.40.867+5.30.508-2.60.744
Open-9.70.106-2.70.648-1.10.853-1.80.777+1.00.877+4.40.485-1.40.86751.5%136+4.00.508-3.90.500
Rectangle-13.70.022-6.70.253-5.10.398-5.80.352-3.00.642+0.40.952-5.30.508-4.00.50847.5%139-7.90.173
Octagon-5.70.318+1.30.821+2.80.630+2.20.715+4.90.429+8.30.169+2.60.744+3.90.500+7.90.17355.4%157
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.