VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs Taka

Akira vs Taka in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 44.7% of 3,799 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 counted3,799
Win rate44.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.3 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
Full fence50.8%+6.10.008417
Half fence49.0%+4.30.084361
Octagon45.4%+0.70.765414
Open44.8%+0.10.986344
Low fence44.6%-0.10.949368
Rectangle44.4%-0.30.901367
Single wall42.6%-2.10.388380
Breakable full fence42.4%-2.30.338382
Breakable half fence41.6%-3.10.191394
Fence and open38.5%-6.30.082182
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 15.03 on 9 df, p 0.090

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.8%417+8.40.017+1.80.615+9.20.009+6.30.079+8.20.020+12.40.005+6.10.095+6.40.072+5.40.117
Breakable full fence-8.40.01742.4%382-6.60.070+0.80.825-2.20.551-0.20.950+4.00.373-2.40.522-2.00.580-3.00.394
Half fence-1.80.615+6.60.07049.0%361+7.40.041+4.50.227+6.40.081+10.60.020+4.30.257+4.60.212+3.60.314
Breakable half fence-9.20.009-0.80.825-7.40.04141.6%394-3.00.413-1.00.777+3.20.472-3.10.390-2.80.437-3.80.278
Low fence-6.30.079+2.20.551-4.50.227+3.00.41344.6%368+1.90.594+6.10.173-0.20.957+0.20.967-0.80.813
Single wall-8.20.020+0.20.950-6.40.081+1.00.777-1.90.59442.6%380+4.20.347-2.10.563-1.80.623-2.80.431
Fence and open-12.40.005-4.00.373-10.60.020-3.20.472-6.10.173-4.20.34738.5%182-6.30.164-6.00.184-7.00.115
Open-6.10.095+2.40.522-4.30.257+3.10.390+0.20.957+2.10.563+6.30.16444.8%344+0.40.925-0.60.859
Rectangle-6.40.072+2.00.580-4.60.212+2.80.437-0.20.967+1.80.623+6.00.184-0.40.92544.4%367-1.00.780
Octagon-5.40.117+3.00.394-3.60.314+3.80.278+0.80.813+2.80.431+7.00.115+0.60.859+1.00.78045.4%414
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 counted2,021
Win rate45.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-14.4 pts
Survive correction2
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 fence54.9%+9.60.002226
Half fence52.9%+7.60.021208
Low fence44.9%-0.50.888194
Rectangle44.5%-0.80.816182
Single wall44.3%-1.00.761212
Breakable half fence43.7%-1.60.617215
Octagon42.8%-2.50.438208
Open42.0%-3.30.345181
Breakable full fence41.1%-4.20.200209
Fence and open30.9%-14.40.00784
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 23.30 on 9 df, p 0.006

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.9%226+13.70.004+2.00.679+11.20.019+10.00.041+10.50.028+23.9<0.001+12.90.010+10.40.037+12.10.012
Breakable full fence-13.70.00441.1%209-11.70.016-2.60.592-3.70.454-3.20.508+10.20.104-0.80.867-3.40.503-1.60.734
Half fence-2.00.679+11.70.01652.9%208+9.20.059+8.00.107+8.50.080+21.9<0.001+10.90.032+8.40.099+10.10.039
Breakable half fence-11.20.019+2.60.592-9.20.05943.7%215-1.10.819-0.60.898+12.80.043+1.70.729-0.80.875+0.90.847
Low fence-10.00.041+3.70.454-8.00.107+1.10.81944.9%194+0.50.918+13.90.030+2.90.577+0.30.947+2.10.678
Single wall-10.50.028+3.20.508-8.50.080+0.60.898-0.50.91844.3%212+13.40.034+2.40.639-0.20.974+1.60.749
Fence and open-23.9<0.001-10.20.104-21.9<0.001-12.80.043-13.90.030-13.40.03430.9%84-11.00.086-13.60.036-11.80.061
Open-12.90.010+0.80.867-10.90.032-1.70.729-2.90.577-2.40.639+11.00.08642.0%181-2.50.628-0.80.874
Rectangle-10.40.037+3.40.503-8.40.099+0.80.875-0.30.947+0.20.974+13.60.036+2.50.62844.5%182+1.70.733
Octagon-12.10.012+1.60.734-10.10.039-0.90.847-2.10.678-1.60.749+11.80.061+0.80.874-1.70.73342.8%208
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 counted1,524
Win rate43.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.9 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
Octagon47.2%+4.20.228180
Open46.5%+3.40.385142
Full fence45.3%+2.20.547159
Rectangle44.6%+1.60.657168
Half fence44.4%+1.30.759124
Breakable full fence42.6%-0.50.902155
Low fence41.6%-1.40.710149
Fence and open40.0%-3.00.58575 ·
Breakable half fence39.9%-3.20.403153
Single wall38.2%-4.90.200152
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 5.06 on 9 df, p 0.829

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.3%159+2.70.630+0.90.876+5.40.334+3.70.516+7.10.203+5.30.447-1.20.835+0.60.907-1.90.721
Breakable full fence-2.70.63042.6%155-1.80.766+2.70.629+1.00.864+4.40.430+2.60.710-3.90.499-2.10.709-4.60.395
Half fence-0.90.876+1.80.76644.4%124+4.50.452+2.70.648+6.20.298+4.30.547-2.10.729-0.30.961-2.90.622
Breakable half fence-5.40.334-2.70.629-4.50.45239.9%153-1.70.758+1.70.759-0.10.985-6.60.252-4.80.387-7.30.178
Low fence-3.70.516-1.00.864-2.70.648+1.70.75841.6%149+3.50.541+1.60.817-4.90.403-3.00.587-5.60.308
Single wall-7.10.203-4.40.430-6.20.298-1.70.759-3.50.54138.2%152-1.80.789-8.30.149-6.50.240-9.10.097
Fence and open-5.30.447-2.60.710-4.30.547+0.10.985-1.60.817+1.80.78940.0%75-6.50.361-4.60.500-7.20.291
Open+1.20.835+3.90.499+2.10.729+6.60.252+4.90.403+8.30.149+6.50.36146.5%142+1.80.746-0.70.894
Rectangle-0.60.907+2.10.709+0.30.961+4.80.387+3.00.587+6.50.240+4.60.500-1.80.74644.6%168-2.60.629
Octagon+1.90.721+4.60.395+2.90.622+7.30.178+5.60.308+9.10.097+7.20.291+0.70.894+2.60.62947.2%180
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 counted254
Win rate50.0%
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
Single wall62.5%+12.50.30216 ·
Fence and open60.9%+10.90.27423 ·
Low fence60.0%+10.00.29225 ·
Open57.1%+7.10.49421 ·
Breakable full fence55.6%+5.60.62518 ·
Octagon53.9%+3.90.67926 ·
Full fence50.0%+0.01.00032 ·
Half fence41.4%-8.60.32429 ·
Rectangle41.2%-8.80.45117 ·
Breakable half fence34.6%-15.40.09826 ·
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 7.64 on 9 df, p 0.571

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%32-5.60.706+8.60.500+15.40.239-10.00.452-12.50.413-10.90.425-7.10.610+8.80.556-3.90.771
Breakable full fence+5.60.70655.6%18+14.20.344+20.90.168-4.40.771-6.90.681-5.30.732-1.60.921+14.40.395+1.70.911
Half fence-8.60.500-14.20.34441.4%29+6.80.606-18.60.172-21.10.175-19.50.163-15.80.271+0.20.989-12.50.355
Breakable half fence-15.40.239-20.90.168-6.80.60634.6%26-25.40.069-27.90.078-26.20.066-22.50.122-6.60.663-19.20.163
Low fence+10.00.452+4.40.771+18.60.172+25.40.06960.0%25-2.50.873-0.90.951+2.90.845+18.80.231+6.20.657
Single wall+12.50.413+6.90.681+21.10.175+27.90.078+2.50.87362.5%16+1.60.918+5.40.742+21.30.221+8.70.582
Fence and open+10.90.425+5.30.732+19.50.163+26.20.066+0.90.951-1.60.91860.9%23+3.70.802+19.70.218+7.00.620
Open+7.10.610+1.60.921+15.80.271+22.50.122-2.90.845-5.40.742-3.70.80257.1%21+16.00.328+3.30.821
Rectangle-8.80.556-14.40.395-0.20.989+6.60.663-18.80.231-21.30.221-19.70.218-16.00.32841.2%17-12.70.416
Octagon+3.90.771-1.70.911+12.50.355+19.20.163-6.20.657-8.70.582-7.00.620-3.30.821+12.70.41653.9%26
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.