VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Jeffry

Brad vs Jeffry in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 52.1% of 4,116 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 counted4,116
Win rate52.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.3 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
Breakable half fence55.2%+3.10.198386
Fence and open53.7%+1.60.634203
Low fence53.5%+1.40.546419
Full fence53.4%+1.30.551478
Octagon53.3%+1.20.610396
Open52.6%+0.60.798435
Half fence52.0%-0.10.975402
Single wall51.9%-0.20.948393
Breakable full fence49.9%-2.20.358397
Rectangle47.7%-4.30.061417
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 6.53 on 9 df, p 0.686

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.4%478+3.50.306+1.40.688-1.80.591-0.10.973+1.40.672-0.30.934+0.70.832+5.60.093+0.10.985
Breakable full fence-3.50.30649.9%397-2.10.550-5.30.137-3.60.305-2.00.567-3.80.376-2.80.425+2.10.539-3.40.337
Half fence-1.40.688+2.10.55052.0%402-3.20.369-1.50.673+0.10.982-1.70.692-0.70.850+4.30.222-1.30.715
Breakable half fence+1.80.591+5.30.137+3.20.36955.2%386+1.70.624+3.30.360+1.50.730+2.50.467+7.50.035+1.90.594
Low fence+0.10.973+3.60.305+1.50.673-1.70.62453.5%419+1.60.658-0.20.956+0.80.811+5.70.097+0.20.959
Single wall-1.40.672+2.00.567-0.10.982-3.30.360-1.60.65851.9%393-1.80.679-0.70.832+4.20.234-1.40.699
Fence and open+0.30.934+3.80.376+1.70.692-1.50.730+0.20.956+1.80.67953.7%203+1.10.804+6.00.163+0.40.924
Open-0.70.832+2.80.425+0.70.850-2.50.467-0.80.811+0.70.832-1.10.80452.6%435+4.90.151-0.60.854
Rectangle-5.60.093-2.10.539-4.30.222-7.50.035-5.70.097-4.20.234-6.00.163-4.90.15147.7%417-5.60.113
Octagon-0.10.985+3.40.337+1.30.715-1.90.594-0.20.959+1.40.699-0.40.924+0.60.854+5.60.11353.3%396
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 counted1,396
Win rate51.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.8 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
Full fence54.5%+3.50.356156
Fence and open54.0%+3.00.59776 ·
Low fence53.9%+2.90.451156
Rectangle53.0%+2.00.624132
Open52.3%+1.30.759132
Half fence52.1%+1.10.776140
Breakable full fence50.6%-0.40.924156
Single wall49.6%-1.40.746117
Octagon48.9%-2.10.605133
Breakable half fence47.2%-3.80.374127
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 2.76 on 9 df, p 0.973

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.5%156+3.90.496+2.40.686+7.20.225+0.60.910+4.90.421+0.50.938+2.20.707+1.50.805+5.60.341
Breakable full fence-3.90.49650.6%156-1.50.796+3.40.570-3.20.571+1.10.861-3.30.636-1.60.783-2.40.686+1.80.764
Half fence-2.40.686+1.50.79652.1%140+4.90.424-1.70.769+2.60.681-1.80.800-0.10.983-0.90.884+3.30.589
Breakable half fence-7.20.225-3.40.570-4.90.42447.2%127-6.60.269-2.30.716-6.70.355-5.00.418-5.80.352-1.60.793
Low fence-0.60.910+3.20.571+1.70.769+6.60.26953.9%156+4.30.484-0.10.988+1.60.790+0.80.890+5.00.399
Single wall-4.90.421-1.10.861-2.60.681+2.30.716-4.30.48449.6%117-4.40.552-2.70.671-3.50.586+0.70.912
Fence and open-0.50.938+3.30.636+1.80.800+6.70.355+0.10.988+4.40.55254.0%76+1.70.816+0.90.898+5.10.480
Open-2.20.707+1.60.783+0.10.983+5.00.418-1.60.790+2.70.671-1.70.81652.3%132-0.80.902+3.40.580
Rectangle-1.50.805+2.40.686+0.90.884+5.80.352-0.80.890+3.50.586-0.90.898+0.80.90253.0%132+4.20.498
Octagon-5.60.341-1.80.764-3.30.589+1.60.793-5.00.399-0.70.912-5.10.480-3.40.580-4.20.49848.9%133
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 counted2,435
Win rate52.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.7 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
Breakable half fence59.3%+6.40.041231
Low fence54.8%+1.80.556230
Fence and open54.7%+1.80.695117
Half fence54.2%+1.30.674236
Octagon53.4%+0.40.890238
Open53.1%+0.20.944271
Single wall52.9%+0.00.999238
Full fence52.4%-0.60.828298
Breakable full fence48.6%-4.30.180220
Rectangle46.2%-6.70.024253
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 10.61 on 9 df, p 0.303

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.4%298+3.70.403-1.90.664-7.00.110-2.40.578-0.60.891-2.40.666-0.80.851+6.10.153-1.00.816
Breakable full fence-3.70.40348.6%220-5.60.232-10.70.023-6.10.192-4.30.357-6.10.289-4.50.321+2.40.603-4.70.312
Half fence+1.90.664+5.60.23254.2%236-5.10.269-0.50.906+1.30.777-0.50.934+1.10.804+8.00.077+0.90.848
Breakable half fence+7.00.110+10.70.023+5.10.26959.3%231+4.50.326+6.40.165+4.60.411+6.20.165+13.10.004+6.00.194
Low fence+2.40.578+6.10.192+0.50.906-4.50.32654.8%230+1.80.690+0.10.988+1.60.713+8.50.061+1.40.758
Single wall+0.60.891+4.30.357-1.30.777-6.40.165-1.80.69052.9%238-1.80.755-0.20.965+6.70.138-0.40.927
Fence and open+2.40.666+6.10.289+0.50.934-4.60.411-0.10.988+1.80.75554.7%117+1.60.777+8.40.130+1.30.812
Open+0.80.851+4.50.321-1.10.804-6.20.165-1.60.713+0.20.965-1.60.77753.1%271+6.90.115-0.20.960
Rectangle-6.10.153-2.40.603-8.00.077-13.10.004-8.50.061-6.70.138-8.40.130-6.90.11546.2%253-7.10.115
Octagon+1.00.816+4.70.312-0.90.848-6.00.194-1.40.758+0.40.927-1.30.812+0.20.960+7.10.11553.4%238
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 counted285
Win rate49.8%
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
Octagon76.0%+26.20.00625 ·
Full fence58.3%+8.50.38424 ·
Breakable full fence57.1%+7.30.48621 ·
Breakable half fence57.1%+7.30.41528 ·
Single wall52.6%+2.80.71038 ·
Open50.0%+0.20.98332 ·
Low fence42.4%-7.40.36633 ·
Fence and open40.0%-9.80.52710 ·
Rectangle37.5%-12.30.13932 ·
Half fence30.8%-19.10.04226 ·
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 15.53 on 9 df, p 0.077

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence58.3%24+1.20.936+27.60.050+1.20.931+15.90.236+5.70.660+18.30.329+8.30.536+20.80.122-17.70.187
Breakable full fence-1.20.93657.1%21+26.40.069+0.01.000+14.70.291+4.50.739+17.10.372+7.10.610+19.60.160-18.90.174
Half fence-27.60.050-26.40.06930.8%26-26.40.051-11.70.358-21.90.083-9.20.599-19.20.139-6.70.592-45.20.001
Breakable half fence-1.20.931-0.01.000+26.40.05157.1%28+14.70.252+4.50.716+17.10.351+7.10.580+19.60.128-18.90.148
Low fence-15.90.236-14.70.291+11.70.358-14.70.25242.4%33-10.20.390+2.40.892-7.60.540+4.90.685-33.60.011
Single wall-5.70.660-4.50.739+21.90.083-4.50.716+10.20.39052.6%38+12.60.477+2.60.826+15.10.206-23.40.062
Fence and open-18.30.329-17.10.372+9.20.599-17.10.351-2.40.892-12.60.47740.0%10-10.00.580+2.50.887-36.00.043
Open-8.30.536-7.10.610+19.20.139-7.10.580+7.60.540-2.60.826+10.00.58050.0%32+12.50.313-26.00.045
Rectangle-20.80.122-19.60.160+6.70.592-19.60.128-4.90.685-15.10.206-2.50.887-12.50.31337.5%32-38.50.004
Octagon+17.70.187+18.90.174+45.20.001+18.90.148+33.60.011+23.40.062+36.00.043+26.00.045+38.50.00476.0%25
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.