VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs Lion

Akira vs Lion in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 48.5% of 10,002 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 counted10,002
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-2.9 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
Low fence51.4%+2.80.073905
Octagon49.6%+1.10.4701,024
Half fence49.3%+0.80.620986
Breakable full fence49.3%+0.70.6311,009
Fence and open49.1%+0.60.792464
Rectangle48.5%-0.00.9841,109
Full fence47.8%-0.70.639993
Breakable half fence47.1%-1.40.3451,012
Single wall46.6%-2.00.1861,024
Open45.6%-2.90.0501,017
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 9.80 on 9 df, p 0.367

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.8%993-1.40.524-1.50.517+0.70.753-3.50.123+1.20.573-1.30.643+2.20.321-0.70.756-1.80.425
Breakable full fence+1.40.52449.3%1,009-0.00.988+2.10.340-2.10.353+2.70.227+0.10.966+3.60.102+0.80.732-0.30.874
Half fence+1.50.517+0.00.98849.3%986+2.20.335-2.10.364+2.70.224+0.10.957+3.70.100+0.80.722-0.30.886
Breakable half fence-0.70.753-2.10.340-2.20.33547.1%1,012-4.20.063+0.60.803-2.00.474+1.50.495-1.40.526-2.50.264
Low fence+3.50.123+2.10.353+2.10.364+4.20.06351.4%905+4.80.035+2.20.432+5.80.012+2.90.200+1.80.437
Single wall-1.20.573-2.70.227-2.70.224-0.60.803-4.80.03546.6%1,024-2.60.360+1.00.664-1.90.373-3.00.170
Fence and open+1.30.643-0.10.966-0.10.957+2.00.474-2.20.432+2.60.36049.1%464+3.50.209+0.60.821-0.50.866
Open-2.20.321-3.60.102-3.70.100-1.50.495-5.80.012-1.00.664-3.50.20945.6%1,017-2.90.183-4.00.071
Rectangle+0.70.756-0.80.732-0.80.722+1.40.526-2.90.200+1.90.373-0.60.821+2.90.18348.5%1,109-1.10.613
Octagon+1.80.425+0.30.874+0.30.886+2.50.264-1.80.437+3.00.170+0.50.866+4.00.071+1.10.61349.6%1,024
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 counted4,424
Win rate48.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.8 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
Low fence52.4%+4.00.074439
Rectangle52.3%+4.00.061495
Fence and open51.8%+3.50.291218
Half fence49.0%+0.60.791431
Breakable half fence48.3%-0.10.968460
Octagon47.7%-0.70.774434
Full fence47.1%-1.20.576448
Open45.8%-2.60.239459
Breakable full fence45.5%-2.90.207429
Single wall43.5%-4.80.043402
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 13.88 on 9 df, p 0.127

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.1%448+1.60.626-1.90.582-1.20.726-5.30.115+3.60.297-4.70.251+1.40.684-5.20.109-0.60.859
Breakable full fence-1.60.62645.5%429-3.50.304-2.80.402-6.90.041+1.90.577-6.40.125-0.30.929-6.90.037-2.20.509
Half fence+1.90.582+3.50.30449.0%431+0.70.836-3.40.311+5.40.117-2.90.488+3.20.339-3.40.307+1.30.711
Breakable half fence+1.20.726+2.80.402-0.70.83648.3%460-4.10.216+4.70.165-3.60.385+2.50.446-4.10.210+0.60.866
Low fence+5.30.115+6.90.041+3.40.311+4.10.21652.4%439+8.90.010+0.60.893+6.60.047+0.10.983+4.70.165
Single wall-3.60.297-1.90.577-5.40.117-4.70.165-8.90.01043.5%402-8.30.048-2.20.513-8.80.009-4.20.227
Fence and open+4.70.251+6.40.125+2.90.488+3.60.385-0.60.893+8.30.04851.8%218+6.10.139-0.50.904+4.10.319
Open-1.40.684+0.30.929-3.20.339-2.50.446-6.60.047+2.20.513-6.10.13945.8%459-6.60.042-1.90.561
Rectangle+5.20.109+6.90.037+3.40.307+4.10.210-0.10.983+8.80.009+0.50.904+6.60.04252.3%495+4.60.159
Octagon+0.60.859+2.20.509-1.30.711-0.60.866-4.70.165+4.20.227-4.10.319+1.90.561-4.60.15947.7%434
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 counted4,526
Win rate48.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.1 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
Breakable full fence52.5%+4.10.065461
Octagon50.7%+2.30.287479
Low fence50.7%+2.20.366375
Half fence48.5%+0.10.959447
Open47.9%-0.60.798470
Single wall47.7%-0.80.719493
Full fence47.4%-1.00.649443
Fence and open46.4%-2.00.566196
Breakable half fence45.6%-2.90.200452
Rectangle44.7%-3.80.072506
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 9.78 on 9 df, p 0.368

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.4%443-5.10.126-1.10.733+1.80.583-3.30.352-0.30.936+1.00.820-0.50.887+2.70.398-3.30.313
Breakable full fence+5.10.12652.5%461+3.90.234+6.90.037+1.80.599+4.80.136+6.10.155+4.60.158+7.80.015+1.80.589
Half fence+1.10.733-3.90.23448.5%447+3.00.372-2.10.545+0.90.788+2.10.621+0.70.838+3.90.231-2.20.506
Breakable half fence-1.80.583-6.90.037-3.00.37245.6%452-5.10.145-2.10.520-0.80.841-2.30.485+0.90.777-5.20.116
Low fence+3.30.352-1.80.599+2.10.545+5.10.14550.7%375+3.00.381+4.20.336+2.80.420+6.00.078-0.10.985
Single wall+0.30.936-4.80.136-0.90.788+2.10.520-3.00.38147.7%493+1.20.769-0.20.949+3.00.341-3.10.340
Fence and open-1.00.820-6.10.155-2.10.621+0.80.841-4.20.336-1.20.76946.4%196-1.40.734+1.80.673-4.30.310
Open+0.50.887-4.60.158-0.70.838+2.30.485-2.80.420+0.20.949+1.40.73447.9%470+3.20.315-2.90.379
Rectangle-2.70.398-7.80.015-3.90.231-0.90.777-6.00.078-3.00.341-1.80.673-3.20.31544.7%506-6.10.057
Octagon+3.30.313-1.80.589+2.20.506+5.20.116+0.10.985+3.10.340+4.30.310+2.90.379+6.10.05750.7%479
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 counted1,052
Win rate49.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-16.9 pts
Survive correction1
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 fence53.7%+3.90.393108
Full fence52.9%+3.10.506102
Octagon52.2%+2.40.586111
Single wall51.9%+2.10.606129
Breakable full fence50.4%+0.60.888119
Low fence49.5%-0.40.94391
Rectangle49.1%-0.70.872108
Breakable half fence49.0%-0.80.865100
Fence and open48.0%-1.80.79350 ·
Open33.0%-16.9<0.00188
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 11.63 on 9 df, p 0.235

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.9%102+2.50.709-0.80.912+3.90.575+3.50.628+1.00.880+4.90.567+20.00.006+3.90.575+0.70.920
Breakable full fence-2.50.70950.4%119-3.30.621+1.40.834+1.00.889-1.50.811+2.40.774+17.50.012+1.40.839-1.80.781
Half fence+0.80.912+3.30.62153.7%108+4.70.498+4.20.550+1.80.786+5.70.505+20.80.004+4.60.496+1.40.830
Breakable half fence-3.90.575-1.40.834-4.70.49849.0%100-0.50.950-2.90.659+1.00.908+16.10.026-0.10.991-3.20.637
Low fence-3.50.628-1.00.889-4.20.550+0.50.95049.5%91-2.50.716+1.40.869+16.50.025+0.40.958-2.80.692
Single wall-1.00.880+1.50.811-1.80.786+2.90.659+2.50.71651.9%129+3.90.636+19.00.006+2.90.661-0.30.961
Fence and open-4.90.567-2.40.774-5.70.505-1.00.908-1.40.869-3.90.63648.0%50+15.10.081-1.10.900-4.20.617
Open-20.00.006-17.50.012-20.80.004-16.10.026-16.50.025-19.00.006-15.10.08133.0%88-16.10.023-19.30.006
Rectangle-3.90.575-1.40.839-4.60.496+0.10.991-0.40.958-2.90.661+1.10.900+16.10.02349.1%108-3.20.638
Octagon-0.70.920+1.80.781-1.40.830+3.20.637+2.80.692+0.30.961+4.20.617+19.30.006+3.20.63852.2%111
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.