VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs Lei Fei

Akira vs Lei Fei in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 47.5% of 7,098 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 counted7,098
Win rate47.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-2.7 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
Full fence49.3%+1.80.329694
Single wall49.1%+1.60.409644
Open48.0%+0.50.777731
Rectangle48.0%+0.40.808730
Breakable half fence47.4%-0.20.929642
Half fence47.2%-0.30.840780
Fence and open47.0%-0.50.834402
Breakable full fence46.9%-0.60.746703
Octagon46.6%-0.90.610691
Low fence44.8%-2.70.140676
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 3.97 on 9 df, p 0.913

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.3%694+2.30.382+2.10.421+1.90.481+4.50.098+0.20.938+2.30.470+1.30.633+1.30.615+2.70.318
Breakable full fence-2.30.38246.9%703-0.20.927-0.40.880+2.10.430-2.10.435-0.10.981-1.10.684-1.00.704+0.30.898
Half fence-2.10.421+0.20.92747.2%780-0.20.948+2.40.368-1.90.478+0.20.957-0.80.745-0.80.766+0.60.824
Breakable half fence-1.90.481+0.40.880+0.20.94847.4%642+2.50.357-1.70.538+0.30.915-0.70.806-0.60.826+0.80.783
Low fence-4.50.098-2.10.430-2.40.368-2.50.35744.8%676-4.20.122-2.20.485-3.20.230-3.10.241-1.80.510
Single wall-0.20.938+2.10.435+1.90.478+1.70.538+4.20.12249.1%644+2.10.518+1.10.697+1.10.678+2.50.367
Fence and open-2.30.470+0.10.981-0.20.957-0.30.915+2.20.485-2.10.51847.0%402-1.00.747-0.90.764+0.40.894
Open-1.30.633+1.10.684+0.80.745+0.70.806+3.20.230-1.10.697+1.00.74748.0%731+0.10.978+1.40.593
Rectangle-1.30.615+1.00.704+0.80.766+0.60.826+3.10.241-1.10.678+0.90.764-0.10.97848.0%730+1.40.611
Octagon-2.70.318-0.30.898-0.60.824-0.80.783+1.80.510-2.50.367-0.40.894-1.40.593-1.40.61146.6%691
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 counted2,858
Win rate47.7%
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
Half fence51.1%+3.40.240274
Breakable half fence50.6%+2.90.345243
Rectangle50.2%+2.40.367305
Single wall48.3%+0.60.844240
Full fence47.9%+0.10.959282
Fence and open47.6%-0.20.965164
Octagon46.7%-1.00.739261
Open45.7%-2.00.471293
Low fence44.5%-3.20.227308
Breakable full fence43.5%-4.20.113317
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 6.87 on 9 df, p 0.651

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.9%282+4.30.287-3.20.447-2.80.530+3.40.409-0.50.916+0.30.949+2.10.607-2.30.579+1.10.792
Breakable full fence-4.30.28743.5%317-7.60.066-7.10.096-0.90.811-4.80.260-4.00.400-2.20.585-6.60.098-3.20.440
Half fence+3.20.447+7.60.06651.1%274+0.50.914+6.60.111+2.80.532+3.50.474+5.40.202+0.90.823+4.30.314
Breakable half fence+2.80.530+7.10.096-0.50.91450.6%243+6.10.152+2.30.616+3.10.545+4.90.260+0.50.916+3.90.385
Low fence-3.40.409+0.90.811-6.60.111-6.10.15244.5%308-3.90.369-3.10.522-1.20.758-5.70.159-2.30.589
Single wall+0.50.916+4.80.260-2.80.532-2.30.616+3.90.36948.3%240+0.80.879+2.60.550-1.80.671+1.60.722
Fence and open-0.30.949+4.00.400-3.50.474-3.10.545+3.10.522-0.80.87947.6%164+1.80.707-2.60.591+0.80.869
Open-2.10.607+2.20.585-5.40.202-4.90.260+1.20.758-2.60.550-1.80.70745.7%293-4.40.278-1.00.812
Rectangle+2.30.579+6.60.098-0.90.823-0.50.916+5.70.159+1.80.671+2.60.591+4.40.27850.2%305+3.40.417
Octagon-1.10.792+3.20.440-4.30.314-3.90.385+2.30.589-1.60.722-0.80.869+1.00.812-3.40.41746.7%261
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 counted3,603
Win rate47.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.5 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
Full fence51.4%+3.90.126350
Breakable full fence50.1%+2.60.319331
Single wall49.6%+2.00.429345
Open49.5%+1.90.424382
Rectangle47.2%-0.40.884354
Octagon47.0%-0.60.815362
Half fence45.8%-1.80.436426
Breakable half fence45.1%-2.50.342335
Low fence44.5%-3.00.260321
Fence and open43.0%-4.50.194193
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 8.33 on 9 df, p 0.501

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.4%350+1.30.739+5.70.117+6.40.096+6.90.075+1.90.623+8.40.060+1.90.598+4.20.259+4.50.233
Breakable full fence-1.30.73950.1%331+4.40.232+5.10.190+5.60.152+0.60.879+7.10.114+0.70.857+3.00.436+3.20.401
Half fence-5.70.117-4.40.23245.8%426+0.70.847+1.20.739-3.80.295+2.80.521-3.70.293-1.40.696-1.20.739
Breakable half fence-6.40.096-5.10.190-0.70.84745.1%335+0.50.892-4.50.241+2.10.645-4.40.239-2.10.580-1.90.618
Low fence-6.90.075-5.60.152-1.20.739-0.50.89244.5%321-5.00.195+1.50.733-4.90.192-2.60.494-2.40.528
Single wall-1.90.623-0.60.879+3.80.295+4.50.241+5.00.19549.6%345+6.60.144+0.10.981+2.40.527+2.60.489
Fence and open-8.40.060-7.10.114-2.80.521-2.10.645-1.50.733-6.60.14443.0%193-6.50.142-4.20.350-4.00.373
Open-1.90.598-0.70.857+3.70.293+4.40.239+4.90.192-0.10.981+6.50.14249.5%382+2.30.532+2.50.493
Rectangle-4.20.259-3.00.436+1.40.696+2.10.580+2.60.494-2.40.527+4.20.350-2.30.53247.2%354+0.20.954
Octagon-4.50.233-3.20.401+1.20.739+1.90.618+2.40.528-2.60.489+4.00.373-2.50.493-0.20.95447.0%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: 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 counted637
Win rate46.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.2 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
Fence and open62.2%+15.80.02845 ·
Open50.0%+3.50.57956 ·
Single wall49.1%+2.70.66459 ·
Low fence48.9%+2.50.72447 ·
Breakable full fence47.3%+0.80.90055 ·
Breakable half fence46.9%+0.40.94564 ·
Octagon44.1%-2.40.68168 ·
Full fence43.5%-2.90.62862 ·
Rectangle42.2%-4.20.45071 ·
Half fence41.2%-5.20.31780
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 6.79 on 9 df, p 0.659

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence43.5%62-3.70.686+2.30.783-3.30.708-5.40.576-5.60.537-18.70.056-6.50.483+1.30.880-0.60.948
Breakable full fence+3.70.68647.3%55+6.00.488+0.40.965-1.70.867-1.90.841-14.90.136-2.70.774+5.00.574+3.10.727
Half fence-2.30.783-6.00.48841.2%80-5.60.499-7.70.400-7.90.354-21.00.024-8.80.313-1.00.901-2.90.725
Breakable half fence+3.30.708-0.40.965+5.60.49946.9%64-2.10.830-2.30.801-15.30.114-3.10.733+4.60.589+2.80.751
Low fence+5.40.576+1.70.867+7.70.400+2.10.83048.9%47-0.20.982-13.30.200-1.10.914+6.70.475+4.80.610
Single wall+5.60.537+1.90.841+7.90.354+2.30.801+0.20.98249.1%59-13.10.185-0.80.928+6.90.432+5.00.570
Fence and open+18.70.056+14.90.136+21.00.024+15.30.114+13.30.200+13.10.18562.2%45+12.20.219+20.00.036+18.10.059
Open+6.50.483+2.70.774+8.80.313+3.10.733+1.10.914+0.80.928-12.20.21950.0%56+7.80.384+5.90.514
Rectangle-1.30.880-5.00.574+1.00.901-4.60.589-6.70.475-6.90.432-20.00.036-7.80.38442.2%71-1.90.824
Octagon+0.60.948-3.10.727+2.90.725-2.80.751-4.80.610-5.00.570-18.10.059-5.90.514+1.90.82444.1%68
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.