VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Lion

Brad vs Lion in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 50.3% of 3,702 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 counted3,702
Win rate50.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.8 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
Octagon55.1%+4.80.047383
Half fence53.8%+3.50.157370
Single wall51.6%+1.30.651283
Breakable full fence51.2%+0.90.710371
Low fence50.5%+0.20.922372
Open49.9%-0.40.861373
Rectangle48.5%-1.80.468365
Breakable half fence48.3%-2.00.391414
Fence and open47.5%-2.80.418202
Full fence47.0%-3.30.194349
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 8.91 on 9 df, p 0.446

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.0%349-4.20.257-6.80.069-1.30.717-3.50.341-4.60.250-0.50.904-2.90.440-1.50.688-8.10.029
Breakable full fence+4.20.25751.2%371-2.60.483+2.90.417+0.70.854-0.40.924+3.70.399+1.30.713+2.70.461-3.90.286
Half fence+6.80.069+2.60.48353.8%370+5.50.126+3.20.376+2.20.578+6.30.152+3.90.285+5.30.151-1.30.719
Breakable half fence+1.30.717-2.90.417-5.50.12648.3%414-2.20.533-3.30.395+0.80.855-1.60.663-0.20.959-6.80.056
Low fence+3.50.341-0.70.854-3.20.376+2.20.53350.5%372-1.10.790+3.00.491+0.70.855+2.00.579-4.50.210
Single wall+4.60.250+0.40.924-2.20.578+3.30.395+1.10.79051.6%283+4.10.377+1.70.662+3.10.434-3.50.370
Fence and open+0.50.904-3.70.399-6.30.152-0.80.855-3.00.491-4.10.37747.5%202-2.40.592-1.00.825-7.60.081
Open+2.90.440-1.30.713-3.90.285+1.60.663-0.70.855-1.70.662+2.40.59249.9%373+1.40.709-5.20.150
Rectangle+1.50.688-2.70.461-5.30.151+0.20.959-2.00.579-3.10.434+1.00.825-1.40.70948.5%365-6.60.071
Octagon+8.10.029+3.90.286+1.30.719+6.80.056+4.50.210+3.50.370+7.60.081+5.20.150+6.60.07155.1%383
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 counted1,041
Win rate52.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.2 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 fence60.2%+8.20.09993
Half fence58.1%+6.00.192105
Low fence56.9%+4.80.269116
Octagon52.7%+0.70.883110
Full fence51.0%-1.10.823100
Breakable full fence49.4%-2.70.61283
Rectangle49.1%-3.00.509110
Single wall48.4%-3.70.45891
Open48.1%-4.00.391104
Fence and open43.1%-9.00.16058 ·
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 8.81 on 9 df, p 0.455

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.0%100+1.60.829-7.10.308-9.20.198-5.90.386+2.60.715+7.90.338+2.90.676+1.90.782-1.70.802
Breakable full fence-1.60.82949.4%83-8.70.235-10.80.150-7.50.295+1.10.890+6.30.461+1.30.858+0.30.966-3.30.647
Half fence+7.10.308+8.70.23558.1%105-2.10.762+1.20.857+9.80.173+15.00.066+10.00.147+9.00.186+5.40.429
Breakable half fence+9.20.198+10.80.150+2.10.76260.2%93+3.30.629+11.90.106+17.10.040+12.10.088+11.10.113+7.50.284
Low fence+5.90.386+7.50.295-1.20.857-3.30.62956.9%116+8.60.221+13.80.086+8.80.191+7.80.240+4.20.529
Single wall-2.60.715-1.10.890-9.80.173-11.90.106-8.60.22148.4%91+5.20.531+0.30.969-0.70.917-4.40.537
Fence and open-7.90.338-6.30.461-15.00.066-17.10.040-13.80.086-5.20.53143.1%58-5.00.543-6.00.460-9.60.236
Open-2.90.676-1.30.858-10.00.147-12.10.088-8.80.191-0.30.969+5.00.54348.1%104-1.00.882-4.70.496
Rectangle-1.90.782-0.30.966-9.00.186-11.10.113-7.80.240+0.70.917+6.00.460+1.00.88249.1%110-3.60.590
Octagon+1.70.802+3.30.647-5.40.429-7.50.284-4.20.529+4.40.537+9.60.236+4.70.496+3.60.59052.7%110
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 counted2,003
Win rate49.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches9.1 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
Octagon58.7%+9.10.007196
Half fence51.9%+2.40.464206
Open51.0%+1.50.659196
Single wall51.0%+1.40.708153
Low fence49.3%-0.20.941209
Breakable full fence49.0%-0.50.884210
Rectangle48.7%-0.90.804187
Breakable half fence46.3%-3.20.282242
Full fence45.6%-3.90.267182
Fence and open45.1%-4.40.359102
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 10.30 on 9 df, p 0.327

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.6%182-3.50.496-6.30.213-0.70.890-3.70.468-5.40.327+0.50.934-5.40.292-3.10.556-13.10.011
Breakable full fence+3.50.49649.0%210-2.90.555+2.80.557-0.20.962-1.90.716+4.00.512-2.00.691+0.40.939-9.60.052
Half fence+6.30.213+2.90.55551.9%206+5.70.232+2.70.588+1.00.857+6.80.258+0.90.853+3.30.516-6.70.175
Breakable half fence+0.70.890-2.80.557-5.70.23246.3%242-3.00.525-4.70.362+1.20.841-4.70.324-2.40.624-12.40.010
Low fence+3.70.468+0.20.962-2.70.588+3.00.52549.3%209-1.70.750+4.20.488-1.70.727+0.60.902-9.40.058
Single wall+5.40.327+1.90.716-1.00.857+4.70.362+1.70.75051.0%153+5.90.357-0.00.994+2.30.671-7.70.151
Fence and open-0.50.934-4.00.512-6.80.258-1.20.841-4.20.488-5.90.35745.1%102-5.90.332-3.60.562-13.60.026
Open+5.40.292+2.00.691-0.90.853+4.70.324+1.70.727+0.00.994+5.90.33251.0%196+2.40.645-7.70.128
Rectangle+3.10.556-0.40.939-3.30.516+2.40.624-0.60.902-2.30.671+3.60.562-2.40.64548.7%187-10.00.050
Octagon+13.10.011+9.60.052+6.70.175+12.40.010+9.40.058+7.70.151+13.60.026+7.70.128+10.00.05058.7%196
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 counted658
Win rate49.9%
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
Single wall61.5%+11.70.13239 ·
Fence and open59.5%+9.70.19542 ·
Breakable full fence59.0%+9.10.08678 ·
Half fence52.5%+2.70.66459 ·
Octagon49.4%-0.50.92677 ·
Open49.3%-0.50.92373 ·
Rectangle47.1%-2.80.62768 ·
Full fence44.8%-5.10.38167 ·
Breakable half fence40.5%-9.30.07779 ·
Low fence40.4%-9.40.18047 ·
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 11.82 on 9 df, p 0.224

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.8%67-14.20.088-7.80.384+4.30.603+4.30.644-16.80.096-14.70.134-4.50.591-2.30.790-4.60.583
Breakable full fence+14.20.08859.0%78+6.40.452+18.50.021+18.50.044-2.60.790-0.60.953+9.70.234+11.90.150+9.60.229
Half fence+7.80.384-6.40.45252.5%59+12.00.160+12.10.214-9.00.380-7.00.487+3.20.712+5.50.538+3.20.712
Breakable half fence-4.30.603-18.50.021-12.00.16040.5%79+0.10.993-21.00.031-19.00.046-8.80.275-6.50.424-8.80.267
Low fence-4.30.644-18.50.044-12.10.214-0.10.99340.4%47-21.10.051-19.10.072-8.90.340-6.60.481-8.90.333
Single wall+16.80.096+2.60.790+9.00.380+21.00.031+21.10.05161.5%39+2.00.853+12.20.217+14.50.149+12.20.214
Fence and open+14.70.134+0.60.953+7.00.487+19.00.046+19.10.072-2.00.85359.5%42+10.20.291+12.50.204+10.20.288
Open+4.50.591-9.70.234-3.20.712+8.80.275+8.90.340-12.20.217-10.20.29149.3%73+2.30.789-0.00.997
Rectangle+2.30.790-11.90.150-5.50.538+6.50.424+6.60.481-14.50.149-12.50.204-2.30.78947.1%68-2.30.783
Octagon+4.60.583-9.60.229-3.20.712+8.80.267+8.90.333-12.20.214-10.20.288+0.00.997+2.30.78349.4%77
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.