VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Aoi vs Eileen

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted573
Win rate47.1%
Widest swing13.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Aoi's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Open60.4%+13.30.04253 ·
Fence and open58.6%+11.50.20329 ·
Octagon56.4%+9.30.07778 ·
Rectangle51.0%+3.90.56749 ·
Full fence47.1%-0.10.99351 ·
Half fence41.9%-5.20.38662 ·
Breakable half fence40.4%-6.70.33747 ·
Low fence40.0%-7.10.26655 ·
Breakable full fence37.3%-9.80.08767 ·
Single wall34.9%-12.20.09543 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Aoi's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 16.05 on 9 df, p 0.066

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.1%51+9.80.287+5.10.585+6.60.509+7.10.464+12.20.233-11.60.320-13.30.173-4.00.692-9.30.298
Breakable full fence-9.80.28737.3%67-4.60.592-3.10.737-2.70.762+2.40.796-21.30.053-23.10.012-13.70.141-19.10.022
Half fence-5.10.585+4.60.59241.9%62+1.50.874+1.90.832+7.10.466-16.70.137-18.40.049-9.10.340-14.50.089
Breakable half fence-6.60.509+3.10.737-1.50.87440.4%47+0.40.965+5.50.588-18.20.123-19.90.046-10.60.298-16.00.083
Low fence-7.10.464+2.70.762-1.90.832-0.40.96540.0%55+5.10.604-18.60.104-20.40.034-11.00.260-16.40.062
Single wall-12.20.233-2.40.796-7.10.466-5.50.588-5.10.60434.9%43-23.70.047-25.50.013-16.10.119-21.50.023
Fence and open+11.60.320+21.30.053+16.70.137+18.20.123+18.60.104+23.70.04758.6%29-1.80.877+7.60.515+2.20.837
Open+13.30.173+23.10.012+18.40.049+19.90.046+20.40.034+25.50.013+1.80.87760.4%53+9.40.342+4.00.652
Rectangle+4.00.692+13.70.141+9.10.340+10.60.298+11.00.260+16.10.119-7.60.515-9.40.34251.0%49-5.40.553
Octagon+9.30.298+19.10.022+14.50.089+16.00.083+16.40.062+21.50.023-2.20.837-4.00.652+5.40.55356.4%78
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
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 counted483
Win rate46.2%
Widest swing15.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Aoi's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Open61.7%+15.50.02547 ·
Fence and open57.7%+11.50.22626 ·
Octagon56.5%+10.30.06269 ·
Full fence48.9%+2.80.68947 ·
Rectangle47.2%+1.10.89536 ·
Breakable half fence40.0%-6.20.44735 ·
Half fence38.6%-7.50.29344 ·
Breakable full fence36.9%-9.20.10865 ·
Low fence36.2%-10.00.14847 ·
Single wall36.1%-10.10.20836 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Aoi's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 16.22 on 9 df, p 0.062

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.9%47+12.00.204+10.30.323+8.90.421+12.80.211+12.80.243-8.80.473-12.80.213+1.70.877-7.60.421
Breakable full fence-12.00.20436.9%65-1.70.856-3.10.762+0.80.935+0.80.935-20.80.071-24.80.010-10.30.313-19.60.023
Half fence-10.30.323+1.70.85638.6%44-1.40.902+2.50.808+2.50.816-19.10.122-23.10.028-8.60.440-17.90.064
Breakable half fence-8.90.421+3.10.762+1.40.90240.0%35+3.80.724+3.90.736-17.70.171-21.70.052-7.20.540-16.50.111
Low fence-12.80.211-0.80.935-2.50.808-3.80.72436.2%47+0.10.996-21.50.076-25.50.013-11.10.310-20.40.031
Single wall-12.80.243-0.80.935-2.50.816-3.90.736-0.10.99636.1%36-21.60.092-25.60.021-11.10.339-20.40.047
Fence and open+8.80.473+20.80.071+19.10.122+17.70.171+21.50.076+21.60.09257.7%26-4.00.737+10.50.416+1.20.918
Open+12.80.213+24.80.010+23.10.028+21.70.052+25.50.013+25.60.021+4.00.73761.7%47+14.50.188+5.20.578
Rectangle-1.70.877+10.30.313+8.60.440+7.20.540+11.10.310+11.10.339-10.50.416-14.50.18847.2%36-9.30.365
Octagon+7.60.421+19.60.023+17.90.064+16.50.111+20.40.031+20.40.047-1.20.918-5.20.578+9.30.36556.5%69
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
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 counted90
Win rate52.2%
Widest swing-27.2 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Aoi's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open66.7%+14.40.6103 ·
Low fence62.5%+10.30.5428 ·
Rectangle61.5%+9.30.46713 ·
Octagon55.6%+3.30.8339 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%-2.20.9492 ·
Half fence50.0%-2.20.83318 ·
Open50.0%-2.20.9106 ·
Breakable half fence41.7%-10.60.43212 ·
Single wall28.6%-23.60.1927 ·
Full fence25.0%-27.20.2654 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

Aoi's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 4.26 on 9 df, p 0.894

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence25.0%4-25.00.540-25.00.364-16.70.551-37.50.221-3.60.898-41.70.270-25.00.429-36.50.200-30.60.308
Breakable full fence+25.00.54050.0%2+0.01.000+8.30.825-12.50.747+21.40.571-16.70.709+0.01.000-11.50.756-5.60.887
Half fence+25.00.364-0.01.00050.0%18+8.30.654-12.50.555+21.40.332-16.70.593+0.01.000-11.50.524-5.60.785
Breakable half fence+16.70.551-8.30.825-8.30.65441.7%12-20.80.361+13.10.568-25.00.438-8.30.737-19.90.320-13.90.528
Low fence+37.50.221+12.50.747+12.50.555+20.80.36162.5%8+33.90.189-4.20.898+12.50.640+1.00.965+6.90.772
Single wall+3.60.898-21.40.571-21.40.332-13.10.568-33.90.18928.6%7-38.10.260-21.40.429-33.00.160-27.00.280
Fence and open+41.70.270+16.70.709+16.70.593+25.00.438+4.20.898+38.10.26066.7%3+16.70.635+5.10.869+11.10.735
Open+25.00.429-0.01.000-0.01.000+8.30.737-12.50.640+21.40.429-16.70.63550.0%6-11.50.636-5.60.833
Rectangle+36.50.200+11.50.756+11.50.524+19.90.320-1.00.965+33.00.160-5.10.869+11.50.63661.5%13+6.00.779
Octagon+30.60.308+5.60.887+5.60.785+13.90.528-6.90.772+27.00.280-11.10.735+5.60.833-6.00.77955.6%9
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
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.