VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Akira vs Vanessa

Akira vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Akira wins 48.1% of 6,789 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 counted6,789
Win rate48.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.2 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 fence50.9%+2.80.121706
Octagon49.7%+1.60.369692
Single wall49.3%+1.20.513688
Open49.0%+0.90.618659
Full fence48.5%+0.40.810680
Fence and open48.5%+0.40.884301
Rectangle47.8%-0.20.892648
Low fence46.4%-1.70.363672
Breakable full fence46.1%-2.00.277683
Breakable half fence44.9%-3.20.075710
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 8.23 on 9 df, p 0.511

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.5%680+2.40.373-2.30.388+3.60.179+2.10.439-0.70.783+0.00.994-0.50.859+0.70.801-1.20.662
Breakable full fence-2.40.37346.1%683-4.70.078+1.20.656-0.30.909-3.10.242-2.40.490-2.90.289-1.70.530-3.60.183
Half fence+2.30.388+4.70.07850.9%706+5.90.026+4.40.101+1.60.556+2.40.496+1.80.498+3.00.268+1.10.670
Breakable half fence-3.60.179-1.20.656-5.90.02644.9%710-1.50.576-4.30.104-3.60.297-4.10.130-2.90.283-4.80.073
Low fence-2.10.439+0.30.909-4.40.101+1.50.57646.4%672-2.80.294-2.10.549-2.60.345-1.40.608-3.30.225
Single wall+0.70.783+3.10.242-1.60.556+4.30.104+2.80.29449.3%688+0.80.824+0.30.924+1.40.600-0.40.871
Fence and open-0.00.994+2.40.490-2.40.496+3.60.297+2.10.549-0.80.82448.5%301-0.50.884+0.70.849-1.20.727
Open+0.50.859+2.90.289-1.80.498+4.10.130+2.60.345-0.30.924+0.50.88449.0%659+1.20.671-0.70.798
Rectangle-0.70.801+1.70.530-3.00.268+2.90.283+1.40.608-1.40.600-0.70.849-1.20.67147.8%648-1.90.493
Octagon+1.20.662+3.60.183-1.10.670+4.80.073+3.30.225+0.40.871+1.20.727+0.70.798+1.90.49349.7%692
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 counted3,105
Win rate45.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.0 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 fence51.9%+6.00.024312
Half fence49.2%+3.30.223307
Fence and open48.3%+2.40.549147
Single wall48.3%+2.40.364321
Rectangle46.4%+0.50.858278
Open45.1%-0.80.778297
Low fence44.8%-1.10.678306
Breakable full fence44.7%-1.20.641329
Octagon43.2%-2.70.331285
Breakable half fence40.1%-5.80.019359
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 13.12 on 9 df, p 0.157

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.9%312+7.20.067+2.70.496+11.80.002+7.20.075+3.60.360+3.60.469+6.80.093+5.50.181+8.80.032
Breakable full fence-7.20.06744.7%329-4.50.255+4.60.226-0.10.982-3.60.357-3.60.464-0.40.913-1.70.671+1.50.705
Half fence-2.70.496+4.50.25549.2%307+9.10.019+4.40.274+0.90.822+0.90.860+4.10.317+2.80.501+6.00.142
Breakable half fence-11.80.002-4.60.226-9.10.01940.1%359-4.70.225-8.20.032-8.20.091-5.00.196-6.30.112-3.00.436
Low fence-7.20.075+0.10.982-4.40.274+4.70.22544.8%306-3.50.378-3.50.481-0.30.932-1.60.693+1.60.693
Single wall-3.60.360+3.60.357-0.90.822+8.20.032+3.50.37848.3%321-0.00.998+3.20.430+1.90.645+5.10.206
Fence and open-3.60.469+3.60.464-0.90.860+8.20.091+3.50.481+0.00.99848.3%147+3.20.527+1.90.709+5.10.309
Open-6.80.093+0.40.913-4.10.317+5.00.196+0.30.932-3.20.430-3.20.52745.1%297-1.30.757+2.00.634
Rectangle-5.50.181+1.70.671-2.80.501+6.30.112+1.60.693-1.90.645-1.90.709+1.30.75746.4%278+3.20.439
Octagon-8.80.032-1.50.705-6.00.142+3.00.436-1.60.693-5.10.206-5.10.309-2.00.634-3.20.43943.2%285
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 counted2,917
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.1 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
Open51.7%+3.20.243300
Octagon50.9%+2.50.350320
Low fence49.7%+1.20.666296
Single wall49.5%+1.00.710297
Breakable half fence49.4%+1.00.741267
Half fence48.8%+0.30.917320
Fence and open46.3%-2.10.629123
Breakable full fence45.7%-2.80.331280
Rectangle45.7%-2.80.319291
Full fence43.4%-5.10.065295
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 7.38 on 9 df, p 0.598

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence43.4%295-2.30.575-5.40.183-6.00.151-6.30.126-6.10.136-3.00.580-8.30.043-2.30.573-7.50.061
Breakable full fence+2.30.57545.7%280-3.00.457-3.70.383-4.00.343-3.80.363-0.60.907-6.00.152+0.00.998-5.20.202
Half fence+5.40.183+3.00.45748.8%320-0.70.868-0.90.821-0.70.853+2.40.650-2.90.468+3.00.451-2.20.580
Breakable half fence+6.00.151+3.70.383+0.70.86849.4%267-0.20.958-0.10.989+3.10.570-2.20.596+3.70.378-1.50.718
Low fence+6.30.126+4.00.343+0.90.821+0.20.95849.7%296+0.20.968+3.30.536-2.00.625+4.00.337-1.30.752
Single wall+6.10.136+3.80.363+0.70.853+0.10.989-0.20.96849.5%297+3.10.556-2.20.596+3.80.358-1.40.720
Fence and open+3.00.580+0.60.907-2.40.650-3.10.570-3.30.536-3.10.55646.3%123-5.30.320+0.60.905-4.60.386
Open+8.30.043+6.00.152+2.90.468+2.20.596+2.00.625+2.20.596+5.30.32051.7%300+6.00.147+0.70.856
Rectangle+2.30.573-0.00.998-3.00.451-3.70.378-4.00.337-3.80.358-0.60.905-6.00.14745.7%291-5.20.196
Octagon+7.50.061+5.20.202+2.20.580+1.50.718+1.30.752+1.40.720+4.60.386-0.70.856+5.20.19650.9%320
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 counted767
Win rate55.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches11.1 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
Octagon66.7%+11.10.02787
Half fence65.8%+10.30.05279 ·
Rectangle60.8%+5.20.32479 ·
Fence and open58.1%+2.50.77331 ·
Open54.8%-0.70.90862 ·
Full fence54.8%-0.80.89373 ·
Breakable full fence54.0%-1.50.78774 ·
Single wall52.9%-2.70.63570 ·
Breakable half fence51.2%-4.30.39584
Low fence40.0%-15.50.00670 ·
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 16.43 on 9 df, p 0.058

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.8%73+0.70.928-11.00.165+3.60.652+14.80.077+1.90.816-3.30.759-0.10.996-6.00.457-11.90.125
Breakable full fence-0.70.92854.0%74-11.80.137+2.90.719+14.10.091+1.20.886-4.00.706-0.80.927-6.70.402-12.60.102
Half fence+11.00.165+11.80.13765.8%79+14.60.058+25.80.002+13.00.107+7.80.447+11.00.184+5.10.509-0.80.909
Breakable half fence-3.60.652-2.90.719-14.60.05851.2%84+11.20.165-1.70.837-6.90.512-3.60.663-9.60.219-15.50.040
Low fence-14.80.077-14.10.091-25.80.002-11.20.16540.0%70-12.90.127-18.10.093-14.80.088-20.80.011-26.7<0.001
Single wall-1.90.816-1.20.886-13.00.107+1.70.837+12.90.12752.9%70-5.20.628-2.00.820-7.90.331-13.80.078
Fence and open+3.30.759+4.00.706-7.80.447+6.90.512+18.10.093+5.20.62858.1%31+3.20.768-2.70.795-8.60.390
Open+0.10.996+0.80.927-11.00.184+3.60.663+14.80.088+2.00.820-3.20.76854.8%62-5.90.479-11.80.143
Rectangle+6.00.457+6.70.402-5.10.509+9.60.219+20.80.011+7.90.331+2.70.795+5.90.47960.8%79-5.90.429
Octagon+11.90.125+12.60.102+0.80.909+15.50.040+26.7<0.001+13.80.078+8.60.390+11.80.143+5.90.42966.7%87
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.