VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs Sarah

Akira vs Sarah in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 48.7% of 11,741 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 counted11,741
Win rate48.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.3 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
Rectangle52.0%+3.30.0221,098
Full fence50.6%+1.90.1761,158
Single wall50.3%+1.60.2531,179
Breakable full fence48.8%+0.10.9411,186
Octagon48.7%-0.10.9721,165
Half fence48.6%-0.10.9211,200
Breakable half fence48.5%-0.20.8651,188
Fence and open47.2%-1.50.453593
Low fence46.7%-2.00.1311,238
Open45.5%-3.20.0221,143
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 14.94 on 9 df, p 0.093

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.6%1,158+1.80.388+2.00.326+2.10.305+3.90.055+0.30.882+3.40.180+5.10.014-1.40.506+1.90.351
Breakable full fence-1.80.38848.8%1,186+0.20.908+0.30.870+2.10.294-1.50.472+1.60.524+3.30.108-3.20.128+0.10.942
Half fence-2.00.326-0.20.90848.6%1,200+0.10.962+1.90.349-1.70.403+1.40.586+3.10.134-3.40.101-0.10.967
Breakable half fence-2.10.305-0.30.870-0.10.96248.5%1,188+1.80.376-1.80.378+1.30.614+3.00.148-3.50.093-0.20.929
Low fence-3.90.055-2.10.294-1.90.349-1.80.37646.7%1,238-3.60.076-0.50.832+1.20.559-5.30.010-2.00.331
Single wall-0.30.882+1.50.472+1.70.403+1.80.378+3.60.07650.3%1,179+3.10.221+4.80.021-1.70.416+1.60.431
Fence and open-3.40.180-1.60.524-1.40.586-1.30.614+0.50.832-3.10.22147.2%593+1.70.495-4.80.060-1.40.565
Open-5.10.014-3.30.108-3.10.134-3.00.148-1.20.559-4.80.021-1.70.49545.5%1,143-6.50.002-3.20.127
Rectangle+1.40.506+3.20.128+3.40.101+3.50.093+5.30.010+1.70.416+4.80.060+6.50.00252.0%1,098+3.30.113
Octagon-1.90.351-0.10.942+0.10.967+0.20.929+2.00.331-1.60.431+1.40.565+3.20.127-3.30.11348.7%1,165
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 counted6,793
Win rate48.0%
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
Full fence51.5%+3.50.053691
Octagon50.3%+2.30.229628
Rectangle50.2%+2.10.270610
Single wall48.9%+0.80.642704
Breakable half fence48.1%+0.10.979678
Breakable full fence47.5%-0.60.749666
Half fence46.9%-1.10.528714
Fence and open46.9%-1.20.656333
Low fence45.8%-2.30.187741
Open43.8%-4.20.022664
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 12.87 on 9 df, p 0.168

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.5%691+4.10.134+4.60.085+3.40.204+5.80.029+2.70.321+4.70.161+7.70.005+1.40.625+1.20.663
Breakable full fence-4.10.13447.5%666+0.50.844-0.60.816+1.70.524-1.40.600+0.60.858+3.60.185-2.70.332-2.90.302
Half fence-4.60.085-0.50.84446.9%714-1.20.664+1.20.655-1.90.464+0.10.983+3.10.249-3.20.239-3.40.214
Breakable half fence-3.40.204+0.60.816+1.20.66448.1%678+2.30.379-0.80.771+1.20.712+4.20.118-2.10.456-2.20.419
Low fence-5.80.029-1.70.524-1.20.655-2.30.37945.8%741-3.10.236-1.10.739+1.90.469-4.40.106-4.60.092
Single wall-2.70.321+1.40.600+1.90.464+0.80.771+3.10.23648.9%704+2.00.544+5.00.062-1.30.638-1.50.596
Fence and open-4.70.161-0.60.858-0.10.983-1.20.712+1.10.739-2.00.54446.9%333+3.00.366-3.30.330-3.50.306
Open-7.70.005-3.60.185-3.10.249-4.20.118-1.90.469-5.00.062-3.00.36643.8%664-6.30.024-6.50.019
Rectangle-1.40.625+2.70.332+3.20.239+2.10.456+4.40.106+1.30.638+3.30.330+6.30.02450.2%610-0.20.957
Octagon-1.20.663+2.90.302+3.40.214+2.20.419+4.60.092+1.50.596+3.50.306+6.50.019+0.20.95750.3%628
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 counted4,336
Win rate49.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.9 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
Rectangle53.1%+3.90.092418
Single wall52.2%+3.00.202414
Breakable full fence51.2%+2.00.364467
Half fence50.5%+1.30.581414
Fence and open49.1%-0.00.990236
Full fence48.8%-0.40.869420
Breakable half fence48.3%-0.80.703453
Open48.2%-1.00.649434
Low fence46.3%-2.90.203430
Octagon45.8%-3.40.120461
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 8.99 on 9 df, p 0.438

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.8%420-2.40.481-1.70.629+0.50.891+2.50.460-3.40.331-0.30.933+0.70.849-4.30.213+3.00.367
Breakable full fence+2.40.48151.2%467+0.70.837+2.80.390+4.90.143-1.00.768+2.00.612+3.00.365-1.90.566+5.40.099
Half fence+1.70.629-0.70.83750.5%414+2.10.529+4.20.222-1.70.626+1.30.744+2.30.498-2.60.448+4.70.164
Breakable half fence-0.50.891-2.80.390-2.10.52948.3%453+2.10.539-3.80.260-0.80.840+0.20.955-4.80.160+2.60.436
Low fence-2.50.460-4.90.143-4.20.222-2.10.53946.3%430-5.90.087-2.90.477-1.90.580-6.80.047+0.50.879
Single wall+3.40.331+1.00.768+1.70.626+3.80.260+5.90.08752.2%414+3.00.459+4.00.242-0.90.787+6.40.058
Fence and open+0.30.933-2.00.612-1.30.744+0.80.840+2.90.477-3.00.45949.1%236+1.00.805-4.00.331+3.40.397
Open-0.70.849-3.00.365-2.30.498-0.20.955+1.90.580-4.00.242-1.00.80548.2%434-5.00.148+2.40.475
Rectangle+4.30.213+1.90.566+2.60.448+4.80.160+6.80.047+0.90.787+4.00.331+5.00.14853.1%418+7.30.030
Octagon-3.00.367-5.40.099-4.70.164-2.60.436-0.50.879-6.40.058-3.40.397-2.40.475-7.30.03045.8%461
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 counted612
Win rate52.9%
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
Rectangle61.4%+8.50.13170 ·
Low fence59.7%+6.80.24067 ·
Breakable half fence54.4%+1.40.81857 ·
Half fence54.2%+1.20.82472 ·
Single wall54.1%+1.20.84961 ·
Full fence53.2%+0.20.97147 ·
Octagon52.6%-0.30.95476 ·
Breakable full fence45.3%-7.70.24353 ·
Open44.4%-8.50.23545 ·
Fence and open33.3%-19.60.05024 ·
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 9.64 on 9 df, p 0.381

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.2%47+7.90.430-1.00.917-1.20.903-6.50.489-0.90.925+19.90.113+8.80.401-8.20.376+0.60.952
Breakable full fence-7.90.43045.3%53-8.90.326-9.10.340-14.40.116-8.80.348+11.90.324+0.80.934-16.10.075-7.30.411
Half fence+1.00.917+8.90.32654.2%72-0.20.980-5.50.510+0.10.994+20.80.077+9.70.306-7.30.381+1.50.852
Breakable half fence+1.20.903+9.10.340+0.20.98054.4%57-5.30.551+0.30.975+21.10.083+9.90.319-7.00.423+1.80.841
Low fence+6.50.489+14.40.116+5.50.510+5.30.55159.7%67+5.60.522+26.40.026+15.30.112-1.70.836+7.10.395
Single wall+0.90.925+8.80.348-0.10.994-0.30.975-5.60.52254.1%61+20.80.085+9.70.326-7.30.396+1.50.864
Fence and open-19.90.113-11.90.324-20.80.077-21.10.083-26.40.026-20.80.08533.3%24-11.10.371-28.10.017-19.30.099
Open-8.80.401-0.80.934-9.70.306-9.90.319-15.30.112-9.70.326+11.10.37144.4%45-17.00.074-8.20.384
Rectangle+8.20.376+16.10.075+7.30.381+7.00.423+1.70.836+7.30.396+28.10.017+17.00.07461.4%70+8.80.284
Octagon-0.60.952+7.30.411-1.50.852-1.80.841-7.10.395-1.50.864+19.30.099+8.20.384-8.80.28452.6%76
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.