VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Dural

Brad vs Dural in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 51.0% of 620 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18), with win rates on every stage type.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted620
Win rate51.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open61.8%+10.80.19534 ·
Open57.1%+6.20.24777 ·
Breakable full fence55.9%+4.90.39068 ·
Octagon55.6%+4.60.44263 ·
Low fence54.9%+3.90.55751 ·
Single wall50.0%-1.00.87262 ·
Half fence47.8%-3.20.57867 ·
Breakable half fence45.3%-5.70.38753 ·
Full fence43.9%-7.00.22766 ·
Rectangle43.5%-7.50.29146 ·
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: 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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.54 on 9 df, p 0.582

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence43.9%66-11.90.167-3.80.658-1.30.883-11.00.239-6.10.492-17.80.091-13.20.115+0.50.961-11.60.187
Breakable full fence+11.90.16755.9%68+8.10.345+10.60.247+1.00.915+5.90.502-5.90.571-1.30.879+12.40.194+0.30.970
Half fence+3.80.658-8.10.34547.8%67+2.50.787-7.10.442-2.20.799-14.00.183-9.40.261+4.30.654-7.80.374
Breakable half fence+1.30.883-10.60.247-2.50.78745.3%53-9.60.327-4.70.614-16.50.133-11.90.183+1.80.857-10.30.270
Low fence+11.00.239-1.00.915+7.10.442+9.60.32754.9%51+4.90.604-6.90.530-2.20.802+11.40.261-0.70.944
Single wall+6.10.492-5.90.502+2.20.799+4.70.614-4.90.60450.0%62-11.80.269-7.10.401+6.50.502-5.60.534
Fence and open+17.80.091+5.90.571+14.00.183+16.50.133+6.90.530+11.80.26961.8%34+4.60.649+18.30.106+6.20.555
Open+13.20.115+1.30.879+9.40.261+11.90.183+2.20.802+7.10.401-4.60.64957.1%77+13.70.142+1.60.851
Rectangle-0.50.961-12.40.194-4.30.654-1.80.857-11.40.261-6.50.502-18.30.106-13.70.14243.5%46-12.10.213
Octagon+11.60.187-0.30.970+7.80.374+10.30.270+0.70.944+5.60.534-6.20.555-1.60.851+12.10.21355.6%63
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 counted145
Win rate52.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence66.7%+14.30.4756 ·
Half fence64.3%+11.90.34914 ·
Open62.5%+10.10.27924 ·
Full fence60.0%+7.60.61910 ·
Breakable full fence59.1%+6.70.49622 ·
Octagon55.6%+3.10.77618 ·
Fence and open50.0%-2.40.84914 ·
Breakable half fence33.3%-19.10.3396 ·
Rectangle30.0%-22.40.14110 ·
Single wall28.6%-23.80.06014 ·
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: 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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.06 on 9 df, p 0.431

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.0%10+0.90.961-4.30.831+26.70.302-6.70.790+31.40.124+10.00.628-2.50.891+30.00.178+4.40.820
Breakable full fence-0.90.96159.1%22-5.20.755+25.80.262-7.60.736+30.50.074+9.10.593-3.40.813+29.10.127+3.50.822
Half fence+4.30.831+5.20.75564.3%14+31.00.202-2.40.919+35.70.058+14.30.445+1.80.912+34.30.098+8.70.618
Breakable half fence-26.70.302-25.80.262-31.00.20233.3%6-33.30.248+4.80.831-16.70.492-29.20.197+3.30.889-22.20.346
Low fence+6.70.790+7.60.736+2.40.919+33.30.24866.7%6+38.10.111+16.70.492+4.20.850+36.70.152+11.10.633
Single wall-31.40.124-30.50.074-35.70.058-4.80.831-38.10.11128.6%14-21.40.246-33.90.044-1.40.939-27.00.127
Fence and open-10.00.628-9.10.593-14.30.445+16.70.492-16.70.492+21.40.24650.0%14-12.50.452+20.00.327-5.60.755
Open+2.50.891+3.40.813-1.80.912+29.20.197-4.20.850+33.90.044+12.50.45262.5%24+32.50.084+6.90.650
Rectangle-30.00.178-29.10.127-34.30.098-3.30.889-36.70.152+1.40.939-20.00.327-32.50.08430.0%10-25.60.194
Octagon-4.40.820-3.50.822-8.70.618+22.20.346-11.10.633+27.00.127+5.60.755-6.90.650+25.60.19455.6%18
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 counted456
Win rate50.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open70.0%+19.80.07020 ·
Octagon58.1%+7.90.27543 ·
Single wall56.2%+6.00.37748 ·
Open56.0%+5.80.38650 ·
Breakable full fence54.4%+4.10.55546 ·
Low fence52.3%+2.00.77444 ·
Rectangle47.2%-3.00.70836 ·
Breakable half fence44.4%-5.80.41445 ·
Half fence40.0%-10.20.14945 ·
Full fence39.6%-10.60.10153 ·
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: 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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.92 on 9 df, p 0.281

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence39.6%53-14.70.143-0.40.970-4.80.630-12.70.213-16.60.095-30.40.021-16.40.096-7.60.477-18.50.071
Breakable full fence+14.70.14354.4%46+14.30.170+9.90.345+2.10.844-1.90.853-15.70.235-1.60.871+7.10.522-3.80.719
Half fence+0.40.970-14.30.17040.0%45-4.40.670-12.30.246-16.20.117-30.00.026-16.00.119-7.20.514-18.10.089
Breakable half fence+4.80.630-9.90.345+4.40.67044.4%45-7.80.460-11.80.255-25.60.057-11.60.261-2.80.803-13.70.199
Low fence+12.70.213-2.10.844+12.30.246+7.80.46052.3%44-4.00.702-17.70.183-3.70.717+5.00.653-5.90.582
Single wall+16.60.095+1.90.853+16.20.117+11.80.255+4.00.70256.2%48-13.80.291+0.20.980+9.00.412-1.90.856
Fence and open+30.40.021+15.70.235+30.00.026+25.60.057+17.70.183+13.80.29170.0%20+14.00.280+22.80.100+11.90.367
Open+16.40.096+1.60.871+16.00.119+11.60.261+3.70.717-0.20.980-14.00.28056.0%50+8.80.421-2.10.835
Rectangle+7.60.477-7.10.522+7.20.514+2.80.803-5.00.653-9.00.412-22.80.100-8.80.42147.2%36-10.90.333
Octagon+18.50.071+3.80.719+18.10.089+13.70.199+5.90.582+1.90.856-11.90.367+2.10.835+10.90.33358.1%43
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 counted19
Win rate57.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Brad's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence100.0%+42.10.2022 ·
Low fence100.0%+42.10.3811 ·
Full fence66.7%+8.80.7373 ·
Half fence62.5%+4.60.7298 ·
Open33.3%-24.60.3483 ·
Octagon0.0%-57.90.0802 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 5.84 on 5 df, p 0.322

StageFullHalfBreak. halfLowOpenOct
Full fence66.7%3+4.20.898-33.30.361-33.30.505+33.30.414+66.70.136
Half fence-4.20.89862.5%8-37.50.301-37.50.453+29.20.387+62.50.114
Breakable half fence+33.30.361+37.50.301100.0%2+0.01.000+66.70.136+100.00.046
Low fence+33.30.505+37.50.453-0.01.000100.0%1+66.70.248+100.00.083
Open-33.30.414-29.20.387-66.70.136-66.70.24833.3%3+33.30.361
Octagon-66.70.136-62.50.114-100.00.046-100.00.083-33.30.3610.0%2
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.