VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Lei Fei

Brad vs Lei Fei in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 46.6% of 2,412 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 counted2,412
Win rate46.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.4 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 wall55.1%+8.40.006236
Rectangle49.8%+3.10.336215
Fence and open49.6%+3.00.474135
Octagon47.1%+0.50.875227
Breakable full fence46.8%+0.20.958250
Low fence45.8%-0.80.764273
Half fence45.6%-1.00.752230
Breakable half fence45.1%-1.60.612233
Open43.0%-3.60.218258
Full fence41.5%-5.10.107224
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 12.21 on 9 df, p 0.201

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence41.5%224-5.30.248-4.10.374-3.50.444-4.30.340-13.60.004-8.10.134-1.50.739-8.20.083-5.60.230
Breakable full fence+5.30.24846.8%250+1.10.801+1.70.702+1.00.817-8.30.068-2.80.596+3.80.392-3.00.523-0.30.941
Half fence+4.10.374-1.10.80145.6%230+0.60.899-0.10.976-9.40.042-4.00.462+2.60.559-4.10.385-1.50.750
Breakable half fence+3.50.444-1.70.702-0.60.89945.1%233-0.70.871-10.00.030-4.60.398+2.00.649-4.70.319-2.10.656
Low fence+4.30.340-1.00.817+0.10.976+0.70.87145.8%273-9.30.036-3.80.464+2.80.522-4.00.382-1.40.763
Single wall+13.60.004+8.30.068+9.40.042+10.00.030+9.30.03655.1%236+5.50.311+12.10.007+5.30.259+7.90.087
Fence and open+8.10.134+2.80.596+4.00.462+4.60.398+3.80.464-5.50.31149.6%135+6.60.212-0.10.980+2.50.646
Open+1.50.739-3.80.392-2.60.559-2.00.649-2.80.522-12.10.007-6.60.21243.0%258-6.80.143-4.10.364
Rectangle+8.20.083+3.00.523+4.10.385+4.70.319+4.00.382-5.30.259+0.10.980+6.80.14349.8%215+2.60.580
Octagon+5.60.230+0.30.941+1.50.750+2.10.656+1.40.763-7.90.087-2.50.646+4.10.364-2.60.58047.1%227
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 counted607
Win rate46.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches0.4 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 wall55.8%+9.00.17552 ·
Octagon53.5%+6.70.28558 ·
Breakable half fence51.9%+5.10.43554 ·
Fence and open48.4%+1.60.85531 ·
Low fence47.2%+0.40.93489
Full fence45.5%-1.30.85444 ·
Breakable full fence45.1%-1.70.80151 ·
Rectangle41.4%-5.40.38558 ·
Open40.5%-6.20.25074 ·
Half fence38.5%-8.30.15565 ·
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 7.02 on 9 df, p 0.635

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.5%44+0.30.972+7.00.467-6.40.529-1.70.850-10.30.314-2.90.802+4.90.601+4.10.681-8.00.424
Breakable full fence-0.30.97245.1%51+6.60.471-6.80.489-2.10.811-10.70.279-3.30.772+4.60.612+3.70.696-8.30.384
Half fence-7.00.467-6.60.47138.5%65-13.40.143-8.70.280-17.30.062-9.90.356-2.10.803-2.90.741-15.00.096
Breakable half fence+6.40.529+6.80.489+13.40.14351.9%54+4.70.589-3.90.686+3.50.758+11.30.204+10.50.267-1.60.866
Low fence+1.70.850+2.10.811+8.70.280-4.70.58947.2%89-8.60.326-1.20.909+6.70.395+5.80.489-6.30.458
Single wall+10.30.314+10.70.279+17.30.062+3.90.686+8.60.32655.8%52+7.40.515+15.20.092+14.40.132+2.30.807
Fence and open+2.90.802+3.30.772+9.90.356-3.50.758+1.20.909-7.40.51548.4%31+7.80.459+7.00.526-5.10.649
Open-4.90.601-4.60.612+2.10.803-11.30.204-6.70.395-15.20.092-7.80.45940.5%74-0.80.923-12.90.140
Rectangle-4.10.681-3.70.696+2.90.741-10.50.267-5.80.489-14.40.132-7.00.526+0.80.92341.4%58-12.10.193
Octagon+8.00.424+8.30.384+15.00.096+1.60.866+6.30.458-2.30.807+5.10.649+12.90.140+12.10.19353.5%58
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 counted1,408
Win rate47.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches10.0 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
Single wall57.3%+10.00.008157
Half fence55.4%+8.10.053130
Fence and open53.9%+6.50.23478 ·
Rectangle50.0%+2.70.540118
Breakable full fence46.9%-0.40.926147
Low fence46.4%-0.90.828140
Breakable half fence43.0%-4.30.303128
Octagon42.3%-5.00.221137
Full fence41.7%-5.60.146151
Open40.7%-6.60.092145
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 18.19 on 9 df, p 0.033

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence41.7%151-5.20.365-13.70.022-1.20.834-4.70.419-15.60.006-12.10.081+1.00.857-8.30.176-0.60.916
Breakable full fence+5.20.36546.9%147-8.40.161+4.00.509+0.50.931-10.40.070-6.90.324+6.20.282-3.10.620+4.60.436
Half fence+13.70.022+8.40.16155.4%130+12.40.046+8.90.141-1.90.741+1.50.829+14.70.015+5.40.396+13.00.033
Breakable half fence+1.20.834-4.00.509-12.40.04643.0%128-3.50.569-14.30.016-10.90.129+2.30.703-7.00.269+0.60.917
Low fence+4.70.419-0.50.931-8.90.141+3.50.56946.4%140-10.90.061-7.40.294+5.70.329-3.60.567+4.10.493
Single wall+15.60.006+10.40.070+1.90.741+14.30.016+10.90.06157.3%157+3.50.613+16.60.004+7.30.228+15.00.010
Fence and open+12.10.081+6.90.324-1.50.829+10.90.129+7.40.294-3.50.61353.9%78+13.20.060+3.90.598+11.50.104
Open-1.00.857-6.20.282-14.70.015-2.30.703-5.70.329-16.60.004-13.20.06040.7%145-9.30.131-1.60.779
Rectangle+8.30.176+3.10.620-5.40.396+7.00.269+3.60.567-7.30.228-3.90.598+9.30.13150.0%118+7.70.221
Octagon+0.60.916-4.60.436-13.00.033-0.60.917-4.10.493-15.00.010-11.50.104+1.60.779-7.70.22142.3%137
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 counted397
Win rate44.1%
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
Rectangle61.5%+17.50.02139 ·
Open56.4%+12.30.10239 ·
Octagon56.2%+12.20.14832 ·
Breakable full fence48.1%+4.00.53452 ·
Breakable half fence43.1%-0.90.88451 ·
Low fence40.9%-3.20.65344 ·
Single wall40.7%-3.30.71727 ·
Fence and open38.5%-5.60.55126 ·
Full fence34.5%-9.60.28029 ·
Half fence22.9%-21.20.00835 ·
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 17.45 on 9 df, p 0.042

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence34.5%29-13.60.236+11.60.303-8.70.448-6.40.581-6.30.629-4.00.759-21.90.073-27.10.027-21.80.088
Breakable full fence+13.60.23648.1%52+25.20.017+4.90.615+7.20.482+7.30.535+9.60.421-8.30.431-13.50.202-8.20.467
Half fence-11.60.303-25.20.01722.9%35-20.30.053-18.10.090-17.90.130-15.60.186-33.50.003-38.7<0.001-33.40.005
Breakable half fence+8.70.448-4.90.615+20.30.05343.1%51+2.20.826+2.40.838+4.70.694-13.30.212-18.40.084-13.10.245
Low fence+6.40.581-7.20.482+18.10.090-2.20.82640.9%44+0.20.989+2.50.840-15.50.158-20.60.061-15.30.186
Single wall+6.30.629-7.30.535+17.90.130-2.40.838-0.20.98940.7%27+2.30.865-15.70.211-20.80.096-15.50.235
Fence and open+4.00.759-9.60.421+15.60.186-4.70.694-2.50.840-2.30.86538.5%26-17.90.156-23.10.068-17.80.178
Open+21.90.073+8.30.431+33.50.003+13.30.212+15.50.158+15.70.211+17.90.15656.4%39-5.10.645+0.20.989
Rectangle+27.10.027+13.50.202+38.7<0.001+18.40.084+20.60.061+20.80.096+23.10.068+5.10.64561.5%39+5.30.652
Octagon+21.80.088+8.20.467+33.40.005+13.10.245+15.30.186+15.50.235+17.80.178-0.20.989-5.30.65256.2%32
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.