VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Jean

Brad vs Jean in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 50.8% of 3,421 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 counted3,421
Win rate50.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.0 pts
Survive correction0
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
Half fence54.1%+3.40.182353
Rectangle53.2%+2.50.311372
Octagon52.0%+1.30.612342
Single wall51.8%+1.10.664353
Breakable half fence51.5%+0.80.751357
Breakable full fence50.8%+0.10.978305
Fence and open50.0%-0.80.844166
Low fence49.1%-1.60.527348
Full fence48.4%-2.30.412285
Open45.8%-5.00.044365
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.66 on 9 df, p 0.569

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.4%285-2.40.560-5.70.153-3.10.432-0.70.858-3.40.390-1.60.746+2.70.499-4.80.222-3.60.366
Breakable full fence+2.40.56050.8%305-3.30.400-0.70.853+1.70.668-1.00.794+0.80.865+5.10.191-2.40.533-1.20.755
Half fence+5.70.153+3.30.40054.1%353+2.60.493+5.00.188+2.30.546+4.10.382+8.40.025+0.90.812+2.10.586
Breakable half fence+3.10.432+0.70.853-2.60.49351.5%357+2.40.524-0.30.936+1.50.743+5.80.120-1.70.649-0.50.893
Low fence+0.70.858-1.70.668-5.00.188-2.40.52449.1%348-2.70.474-0.90.855+3.40.366-4.10.273-2.90.445
Single wall+3.40.390+1.00.794-2.30.546+0.30.936+2.70.47451.8%353+1.80.695+6.10.103-1.40.709-0.20.957
Fence and open+1.60.746-0.80.865-4.10.382-1.50.743+0.90.855-1.80.69550.0%166+4.20.363-3.20.489-2.00.665
Open-2.70.499-5.10.191-8.40.025-5.80.120-3.40.366-6.10.103-4.20.36345.8%365-7.50.043-6.30.094
Rectangle+4.80.222+2.40.533-0.90.812+1.70.649+4.10.273+1.40.709+3.20.489+7.50.04353.2%372+1.20.753
Octagon+3.60.366+1.20.755-2.10.586+0.50.893+2.90.445+0.20.957+2.00.665+6.30.094-1.20.75352.0%342
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 counted914
Win rate47.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches9.6 pts
Survive correction0
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
Single wall57.5%+9.60.029113
Half fence53.7%+5.80.200108
Octagon53.6%+5.70.23697
Fence and open51.2%+3.30.66541 ·
Rectangle50.0%+2.10.67094
Open44.8%-3.10.51696
Breakable half fence44.6%-3.30.52383
Low fence41.6%-6.40.24377 ·
Breakable full fence41.4%-6.50.19987
Full fence37.5%-10.40.06572 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 13.82 on 9 df, p 0.129

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence37.5%72-3.90.619-16.20.033-7.10.372-4.10.613-20.00.008-13.70.156-7.30.343-12.50.108-16.10.038
Breakable full fence+3.90.61941.4%87-12.30.087-3.20.674-0.20.981-16.10.024-9.80.296-3.40.642-8.60.245-12.20.097
Half fence+16.20.033+12.30.08753.7%108+9.10.211+12.10.103-3.80.568+2.50.786+8.90.204+3.70.599+0.10.989
Breakable half fence+7.10.372+3.20.674-9.10.21144.6%83+3.00.700-12.90.073-6.60.486-0.20.977-5.40.471-9.00.227
Low fence+4.10.613+0.20.981-12.10.103-3.00.70041.6%77-16.00.031-9.70.315-3.20.670-8.40.271-12.10.114
Single wall+20.00.008+16.10.024+3.80.568+12.90.073+16.00.03157.5%113+6.30.486+12.70.066+7.50.280+3.90.569
Fence and open+13.70.156+9.80.296-2.50.786+6.60.486+9.70.315-6.30.48651.2%41+6.40.490+1.20.896-2.40.797
Open+7.30.343+3.40.642-8.90.204+0.20.977+3.20.670-12.70.066-6.40.49044.8%96-5.20.472-8.80.221
Rectangle+12.50.108+8.60.245-3.70.599+5.40.471+8.40.271-7.50.280-1.20.896+5.20.47250.0%94-3.60.618
Octagon+16.10.038+12.20.097-0.10.989+9.00.227+12.10.114-3.90.569+2.40.797+8.80.221+3.60.61853.6%97
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 counted2,380
Win rate51.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.6 pts
Survive correction0
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
Rectangle54.9%+3.00.290268
Half fence54.8%+3.00.342230
Breakable full fence54.3%+2.50.451210
Breakable half fence53.2%+1.40.628265
Octagon51.7%-0.10.975234
Full fence51.2%-0.60.867201
Single wall50.5%-1.30.684212
Low fence50.4%-1.40.625262
Fence and open48.8%-3.00.491121
Open46.2%-5.60.061253
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.50 on 9 df, p 0.689

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.2%201-3.00.537-3.50.463-2.00.674+0.90.854+0.80.875+2.50.666+5.00.290-3.60.438-0.50.923
Breakable full fence+3.00.53754.3%210-0.50.917+1.10.815+3.90.399+3.80.433+5.50.332+8.00.085-0.60.902+2.60.587
Half fence+3.50.463+0.50.91754.8%230+1.60.726+4.40.329+4.30.364+6.00.283+8.50.061-0.10.988+3.10.507
Breakable half fence+2.00.674-1.10.815-1.60.72653.2%265+2.80.516+2.70.552+4.50.417+7.00.113-1.60.704+1.50.738
Low fence-0.90.854-3.90.399-4.40.329-2.80.51650.4%262-0.10.984+1.60.768+4.10.348-4.50.303-1.30.768
Single wall-0.80.875-3.80.433-4.30.364-2.70.552+0.10.98450.5%212+1.70.764+4.20.364-4.40.340-1.20.794
Fence and open-2.50.666-5.50.332-6.00.283-4.50.417-1.60.768-1.70.76448.8%121+2.50.648-6.10.265-3.00.598
Open-5.00.290-8.00.085-8.50.061-7.00.113-4.10.348-4.20.364-2.50.64846.2%253-8.60.050-5.50.228
Rectangle+3.60.438+0.60.902+0.10.988+1.60.704+4.50.303+4.40.340+6.10.265+8.60.05054.9%268+3.10.482
Octagon+0.50.923-2.60.587-3.10.507-1.50.738+1.30.768+1.20.794+3.00.598+5.50.228-3.10.48251.7%234
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 counted127
Win rate51.2%
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
Low fence77.8%+26.60.0989 ·
Fence and open75.0%+23.80.3334 ·
Breakable half fence66.7%+15.50.3359 ·
Full fence66.7%+15.50.25912 ·
Breakable full fence62.5%+11.30.5088 ·
Half fence46.7%-4.50.71015 ·
Octagon45.5%-5.70.69111 ·
Open43.8%-7.40.52516 ·
Rectangle40.0%-11.20.46110 ·
Single wall39.3%-11.90.15428 ·
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 8.58 on 9 df, p 0.477

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence66.7%12+4.20.848+20.00.299+0.01.000-11.10.577+27.40.112-8.30.755+22.90.229+26.70.211+21.20.305
Breakable full fence-4.20.84862.5%8+15.80.469-4.20.858-15.30.490+23.20.244-12.50.665+18.80.386+22.50.343+17.10.463
Half fence-20.00.299-15.80.46946.7%15-20.00.341-31.10.134+7.40.640-28.30.313+2.90.870+6.70.742+1.20.951
Breakable half fence-0.01.000+4.20.858+20.00.34166.7%9-11.10.599+27.40.152-8.30.764+22.90.271+26.70.245+21.20.343
Low fence+11.10.577+15.30.490+31.10.134+11.10.59977.8%9+38.50.044+2.80.913+34.00.100+37.80.096+32.30.142
Single wall-27.40.112-23.20.244-7.40.640-27.40.152-38.50.04439.3%28-35.70.178-4.50.772-0.70.968-6.20.725
Fence and open+8.30.755+12.50.665+28.30.313+8.30.764-2.80.913+35.70.17875.0%4+31.20.264+35.00.237+29.60.310
Open-22.90.229-18.80.386-2.90.870-22.90.271-34.00.100+4.50.772-31.20.26443.8%16+3.80.851-1.70.930
Rectangle-26.70.211-22.50.343-6.70.742-26.70.245-37.80.096+0.70.968-35.00.237-3.80.85140.0%10-5.50.801
Octagon-21.20.305-17.10.463-1.20.951-21.20.343-32.30.142+6.20.725-29.60.310+1.70.930+5.50.80145.5%11
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.