VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs Kage

Akira vs Kage in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 48.2% of 10,601 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 counted10,601
Win rate48.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches2.1 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
Rectangle50.2%+2.10.1671,013
Full fence49.6%+1.40.3201,111
Single wall49.3%+1.10.4661,023
Breakable half fence49.1%+0.90.5221,034
Half fence49.0%+0.80.5781,152
Open48.0%-0.20.8871,063
Fence and open46.9%-1.20.566507
Breakable full fence46.8%-1.40.3281,067
Octagon46.7%-1.50.2791,142
Low fence46.3%-1.90.2151,008
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 7.34 on 9 df, p 0.601

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.6%1,111+2.80.187+0.60.762+0.50.829+3.30.133+0.30.880+2.60.322+1.60.451-0.70.764+2.90.165
Breakable full fence-2.80.18746.8%1,067-2.20.302-2.40.278+0.40.842-2.50.253-0.20.948-1.20.576-3.50.112+0.10.965
Half fence-0.60.762+2.20.30249.0%1,152-0.20.936+2.60.222-0.30.886+2.00.449+1.00.644-1.30.550+2.30.273
Breakable half fence-0.50.829+2.40.278+0.20.93649.1%1,034+2.80.205-0.10.950+2.20.420+1.10.598-1.10.613+2.50.252
Low fence-3.30.133-0.40.842-2.60.222-2.80.20546.3%1,008-2.90.185-0.60.821-1.60.453-3.90.078-0.30.874
Single wall-0.30.880+2.50.253+0.30.886+0.10.950+2.90.18549.3%1,023+2.30.392+1.30.556-1.00.658+2.60.228
Fence and open-2.60.322+0.20.948-2.00.449-2.20.420+0.60.821-2.30.39246.9%507-1.00.701-3.30.224+0.30.919
Open-1.60.451+1.20.576-1.00.644-1.10.598+1.60.453-1.30.556+1.00.70148.0%1,063-2.30.301+1.30.540
Rectangle+0.70.764+3.50.112+1.30.550+1.10.613+3.90.078+1.00.658+3.30.224+2.30.30150.2%1,013+3.60.097
Octagon-2.90.165-0.10.965-2.30.273-2.50.252+0.30.874-2.60.228-0.30.919-1.30.540-3.60.09746.7%1,142
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 counted4,492
Win rate47.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.7 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 fence51.5%+3.70.100449
Rectangle50.2%+2.50.279438
Open49.0%+1.20.586447
Single wall48.9%+1.10.643401
Half fence48.5%+0.70.734497
Low fence47.5%-0.20.916425
Octagon47.3%-0.50.827482
Fence and open45.6%-2.20.536193
Full fence45.1%-2.70.207488
Breakable full fence44.6%-3.20.150464
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 7.72 on 9 df, p 0.563

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.1%488+0.50.884-3.40.284-6.40.051-2.50.459-3.80.259-0.50.903-3.90.231-5.20.117-2.20.488
Breakable full fence-0.50.88444.6%464-3.90.228-6.80.039-2.90.383-4.30.210-1.00.817-4.40.185-5.60.091-2.70.406
Half fence+3.40.284+3.90.22848.5%497-3.00.364+1.00.771-0.40.908+2.90.494-0.50.877-1.70.596+1.20.710
Breakable half fence+6.40.051+6.80.039+3.00.36451.5%449+3.90.247+2.60.454+5.80.174+2.50.463+1.20.716+4.20.206
Low fence+2.50.459+2.90.383-1.00.771-3.90.24747.5%425-1.40.698+1.90.655-1.50.665-2.70.428+0.20.946
Single wall+3.80.259+4.30.210+0.40.908-2.60.454+1.40.69848.9%401+3.30.453-0.10.973-1.40.696+1.60.641
Fence and open+0.50.903+1.00.817-2.90.494-5.80.174-1.90.655-3.30.45345.6%193-3.40.430-4.60.283-1.70.688
Open+3.90.231+4.40.185+0.50.877-2.50.463+1.50.665+0.10.973+3.40.43049.0%447-1.20.713+1.70.606
Rectangle+5.20.117+5.60.091+1.70.596-1.20.716+2.70.428+1.40.696+4.60.283+1.20.71350.2%438+2.90.375
Octagon+2.20.488+2.70.406-1.20.710-4.20.206-0.20.946-1.60.641+1.70.688-1.70.606-2.90.37547.3%482
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 counted5,032
Win rate47.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.2 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
Full fence50.6%+3.20.114528
Rectangle50.2%+2.90.188466
Half fence48.9%+1.60.435544
Single wall48.0%+0.70.751498
Breakable full fence46.8%-0.60.794494
Breakable half fence46.3%-1.10.627482
Fence and open45.8%-1.50.614262
Open45.7%-1.60.458492
Octagon45.6%-1.70.406552
Low fence44.6%-2.70.202489
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 7.54 on 9 df, p 0.581

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.6%528+3.80.224+1.70.584+4.30.172+6.00.056+2.60.409+4.80.207+4.80.122+0.40.911+4.90.106
Breakable full fence-3.80.22446.8%494-2.10.491+0.50.877+2.20.493-1.20.698+1.00.801+1.00.746-3.50.285+1.10.719
Half fence-1.70.584+2.10.49148.9%544+2.60.400+4.30.165+0.90.770+3.10.410+3.20.308-1.30.676+3.20.282
Breakable half fence-4.30.172-0.50.877-2.60.40046.3%482+1.70.598-1.70.588+0.50.903+0.50.867-3.90.224+0.60.843
Low fence-6.00.056-2.20.493-4.30.165-1.70.59844.6%489-3.40.283-1.20.749-1.10.717-5.60.081-1.10.729
Single wall-2.60.409+1.20.698-0.90.770+1.70.588+3.40.28348.0%498+2.20.565+2.30.476-2.20.490+2.30.448
Fence and open-4.80.207-1.00.801-3.10.410-0.50.903+1.20.749-2.20.56545.8%262+0.10.985-4.40.253+0.10.968
Open-4.80.122-1.00.746-3.20.308-0.50.867+1.10.717-2.30.476-0.10.98545.7%492-4.50.165+0.10.979
Rectangle-0.40.911+3.50.285+1.30.676+3.90.224+5.60.081+2.20.490+4.40.253+4.50.16550.2%466+4.60.147
Octagon-4.90.106-1.10.719-3.20.282-0.60.843+1.10.729-2.30.448-0.10.968-0.10.979-4.60.14745.6%552
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 counted1,077
Win rate54.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches13.4 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 fence67.4%+13.40.00695
Fence and open57.7%+3.70.57952 ·
Breakable full fence56.0%+2.00.656109
Single wall55.6%+1.70.687124
Open53.2%-0.70.864124
Breakable half fence52.4%-1.50.745103
Half fence51.4%-2.60.563111
Rectangle50.5%-3.50.441109
Low fence50.0%-4.00.42294
Octagon49.1%-4.90.284108
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 10.08 on 9 df, p 0.344

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence67.4%95+11.40.095+16.00.020+14.90.032+17.40.015+11.70.078+9.70.243+14.10.035+16.90.015+18.30.008
Breakable full fence-11.40.09556.0%109+4.60.493+3.50.605+6.00.396+0.30.961-1.70.836+2.70.675+5.50.415+6.90.310
Half fence-16.00.020-4.60.49351.4%111-1.10.875+1.40.847-4.30.510-6.30.449-1.90.774+0.90.895+2.30.736
Breakable half fence-14.90.032-3.50.605+1.10.87552.4%103+2.40.734-3.20.628-5.30.534-0.80.904+2.00.774+3.40.626
Low fence-17.40.015-6.00.396-1.40.847-2.40.73450.0%94-5.70.408-7.70.373-3.20.637-0.50.948+0.90.896
Single wall-11.70.078-0.30.961+4.30.510+3.20.628+5.70.40855.6%124-2.00.803+2.40.702+5.20.429+6.60.317
Fence and open-9.70.243+1.70.836+6.30.449+5.30.534+7.70.373+2.00.80357.7%52+4.50.587+7.20.390+8.60.307
Open-14.10.035-2.70.675+1.90.774+0.80.904+3.20.637-2.40.702-4.50.58753.2%124+2.80.673+4.20.528
Rectangle-16.90.015-5.50.415-0.90.895-2.00.774+0.50.948-5.20.429-7.20.390-2.80.67350.5%109+1.40.838
Octagon-18.30.008-6.90.310-2.30.736-3.40.626-0.90.896-6.60.317-8.60.307-4.20.528-1.40.83849.1%108
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.