VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Sarah

Brad vs Sarah in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 50.5% of 4,110 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 counted4,110
Win rate50.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.4 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
Octagon55.9%+5.40.017431
Full fence51.7%+1.20.598404
Open50.9%+0.50.843424
Fence and open50.8%+0.30.925181
Low fence50.5%+0.00.996400
Breakable half fence50.4%-0.10.983454
Half fence50.3%-0.20.927380
Single wall50.0%-0.50.837402
Breakable full fence49.6%-0.90.717395
Rectangle45.6%-4.90.032430
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 9.67 on 9 df, p 0.378

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.7%404+2.10.550+1.50.681+1.30.705+1.20.727+1.70.623+0.90.840+0.80.820+6.20.076-4.20.226
Breakable full fence-2.10.55049.6%395-0.60.858-0.80.812-0.90.804-0.40.915-1.20.788-1.30.705+4.00.246-6.30.070
Half fence-1.50.681+0.60.85850.3%380-0.20.959-0.20.947+0.30.941-0.60.900-0.70.847+4.70.183-5.70.107
Breakable half fence-1.30.705+0.80.812+0.20.95950.4%454-0.10.986+0.40.898-0.40.930-0.50.882+4.90.148-5.50.103
Low fence-1.20.727+0.90.804+0.20.947+0.10.98650.5%400+0.50.887-0.30.941-0.40.899+4.90.156-5.40.118
Single wall-1.70.623+0.40.915-0.30.941-0.40.898-0.50.88750.0%402-0.80.853-0.90.786+4.40.202-5.90.087
Fence and open-0.90.840+1.20.788+0.60.900+0.40.930+0.30.941+0.80.85350.8%181-0.10.979+5.20.235-5.10.249
Open-0.80.820+1.30.705+0.70.847+0.50.882+0.40.899+0.90.786+0.10.97950.9%424+5.40.117-5.00.145
Rectangle-6.20.076-4.00.246-4.70.183-4.90.148-4.90.156-4.40.202-5.20.235-5.40.11745.6%430-10.30.002
Octagon+4.20.226+6.30.070+5.70.107+5.50.103+5.40.118+5.90.087+5.10.249+5.00.145+10.30.00255.9%431
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 counted1,658
Win rate50.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-9.6 pts
Survive correction1
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
Open54.1%+3.40.345172
Half fence54.0%+3.30.395152
Octagon53.5%+2.80.434172
Full fence53.2%+2.60.477169
Single wall52.3%+1.70.670151
Breakable half fence51.3%+0.70.845187
Low fence50.3%-0.30.932151
Fence and open49.1%-1.50.81359 ·
Breakable full fence48.3%-2.40.507178
Rectangle41.0%-9.60.005190
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 10.13 on 9 df, p 0.340

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.2%169+4.90.358-0.70.901+1.90.718+2.90.601+0.90.867+4.10.587-0.80.880+12.20.021-0.20.965
Breakable full fence-4.90.35848.3%178-5.60.308-3.00.564-2.00.715-4.00.469-0.80.911-5.80.282+7.30.161-5.20.333
Half fence+0.70.901+5.60.30854.0%152+2.60.632+3.60.529+1.60.776+4.80.531-0.10.982+12.90.018+0.50.934
Breakable half fence-1.90.718+3.00.564-2.60.63251.3%187+1.00.854-1.00.858+2.20.770-2.70.604+10.30.045-2.10.683
Low fence-2.90.601+2.00.715-3.60.529-1.00.85450.3%151-2.00.730+1.20.878-3.70.502+9.30.087-3.20.571
Single wall-0.90.867+4.00.469-1.60.776+1.00.858+2.00.73052.3%151+3.20.680-1.80.753+11.30.038-1.20.833
Fence and open-4.10.587+0.80.911-4.80.531-2.20.770-1.20.878-3.20.68049.1%59-4.90.514+8.10.272-4.30.565
Open+0.80.880+5.80.282+0.10.982+2.70.604+3.70.502+1.80.753+4.90.51454.1%172+13.00.013+0.60.914
Rectangle-12.20.021-7.30.161-12.90.018-10.30.045-9.30.087-11.30.038-8.10.272-13.00.01341.0%190-12.40.018
Octagon+0.20.965+5.20.333-0.50.934+2.10.683+3.20.571+1.20.833+4.30.565-0.60.914+12.40.01853.5%172
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 counted2,182
Win rate50.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.9 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
Octagon57.8%+7.90.010237
Fence and open53.0%+3.10.496115
Low fence50.5%+0.50.875216
Full fence50.2%+0.30.930201
Breakable full fence50.0%+0.10.989190
Rectangle48.6%-1.30.680220
Breakable half fence48.3%-1.60.593238
Half fence48.3%-1.70.616203
Open46.9%-3.00.333226
Single wall46.8%-3.20.325218
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 8.66 on 9 df, p 0.469

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.2%201+0.20.961+2.00.692+1.90.687-0.20.965+3.50.479-2.80.633+3.40.490+1.60.741-7.60.114
Breakable full fence-0.20.96150.0%190+1.70.733+1.70.730-0.50.926+3.20.517-3.00.606+3.10.529+1.40.783-7.80.108
Half fence-2.00.692-1.70.73348.3%203-0.00.993-2.20.655+1.50.760-4.80.414+1.40.776-0.40.941-9.50.046
Breakable half fence-1.90.687-1.70.730+0.00.99348.3%238-2.10.648+1.50.744-4.70.405+1.40.760-0.30.946-9.50.038
Low fence+0.20.965+0.50.926+2.20.655+2.10.64850.5%216+3.70.444-2.60.655+3.60.454+1.80.703-7.30.117
Single wall-3.50.479-3.20.517-1.50.760-1.50.744-3.70.44446.8%218-6.20.278-0.10.981-1.90.699-11.00.019
Fence and open+2.80.633+3.00.606+4.80.414+4.70.405+2.60.655+6.20.27853.0%115+6.10.284+4.40.444-4.80.398
Open-3.40.490-3.10.529-1.40.776-1.40.760-3.60.454+0.10.981-6.10.28446.9%226-1.70.714-10.90.019
Rectangle-1.60.741-1.40.783+0.40.941+0.30.946-1.80.703+1.90.699-4.40.444+1.70.71448.6%220-9.20.050
Octagon+7.60.114+7.80.108+9.50.046+9.50.038+7.30.117+11.00.019+4.80.398+10.90.019+9.20.05057.8%237
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 counted270
Win rate53.7%
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
Open65.4%+11.70.20926 ·
Breakable half fence62.1%+8.40.33929 ·
Single wall60.6%+6.90.39633 ·
Breakable full fence55.6%+1.90.83927 ·
Rectangle55.0%+1.30.90420 ·
Octagon54.5%+0.80.93422 ·
Full fence52.9%-0.80.92434 ·
Low fence51.5%-2.20.78833 ·
Half fence44.0%-9.70.30725 ·
Fence and open28.6%-25.10.1777 ·
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 5.56 on 9 df, p 0.783

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.9%34-2.60.839+8.90.497-9.10.466+1.40.907-7.70.527+24.40.240-12.40.333-2.10.884-1.60.906
Breakable full fence+2.60.83955.6%27+11.60.405-6.50.621+4.00.755-5.00.693+27.00.203-9.80.465+0.60.970+1.00.944
Half fence-8.90.497-11.60.40544.0%25-18.10.184-7.50.571-16.60.209+15.40.463-21.40.125-11.00.463-10.60.471
Breakable half fence+9.10.466+6.50.621+18.10.18462.1%29+10.60.403+1.50.906+33.50.109-3.30.799+7.10.621+7.50.589
Low fence-1.40.907-4.00.755+7.50.571-10.60.40351.5%33-9.10.457+22.90.270-13.90.284-3.50.805-3.00.825
Single wall+7.70.527+5.00.693+16.60.209-1.50.906+9.10.45760.6%33+32.00.122-4.80.706+5.60.688+6.10.655
Fence and open-24.40.240-27.00.203-15.40.463-33.50.109-22.90.270-32.00.12228.6%7-36.80.080-26.40.228-26.00.231
Open+12.40.333+9.80.465+21.40.125+3.30.799+13.90.284+4.80.706+36.80.08065.4%26+10.40.474+10.80.444
Rectangle+2.10.884-0.60.970+11.00.463-7.10.621+3.50.805-5.60.688+26.40.228-10.40.47455.0%20+0.50.976
Octagon+1.60.906-1.00.944+10.60.471-7.50.589+3.00.825-6.10.655+26.00.231-10.80.444-0.50.97654.5%22
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.