VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Shun

Brad vs Shun in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 51.4% of 3,584 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 counted3,584
Win rate51.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.7 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
Octagon56.1%+4.70.066346
Full fence52.9%+1.60.556325
Fence and open52.9%+1.50.667191
Rectangle52.6%+1.20.608384
Half fence51.4%+0.10.981350
Breakable full fence51.1%-0.20.925354
Single wall50.1%-1.20.597401
Low fence49.9%-1.50.554345
Breakable half fence49.7%-1.60.512356
Open48.6%-2.80.270356
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 5.83 on 9 df, p 0.756

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.9%325+1.80.640+1.50.698+3.20.403+3.10.427+2.80.453+0.00.992+4.30.259+0.30.932-3.10.413
Breakable full fence-1.80.64051.1%354-0.30.937+1.40.707+1.30.736+1.00.783-1.80.697+2.50.499-1.50.689-4.90.190
Half fence-1.50.698+0.30.93751.4%350+1.70.650+1.60.678+1.30.721-1.40.747+2.80.452-1.20.750-4.60.220
Breakable half fence-3.20.403-1.40.707-1.70.65049.7%356-0.10.971-0.40.911-3.20.481+1.10.764-2.90.433-6.30.092
Low fence-3.10.427-1.30.736-1.60.678+0.10.97149.9%345-0.30.941-3.00.502+1.30.739-2.70.458-6.20.102
Single wall-2.80.453-1.00.783-1.30.721+0.40.911+0.30.94150.1%401-2.80.531+1.50.674-2.50.487-6.00.105
Fence and open-0.00.992+1.80.697+1.40.747+3.20.481+3.00.502+2.80.53152.9%191+4.30.339+0.30.950-3.20.477
Open-4.30.259-2.50.499-2.80.452-1.10.764-1.30.739-1.50.674-4.30.33948.6%356-4.00.276-7.50.047
Rectangle-0.30.932+1.50.689+1.20.750+2.90.433+2.70.458+2.50.487-0.30.950+4.00.27652.6%384-3.50.348
Octagon+3.10.413+4.90.190+4.60.220+6.30.092+6.20.102+6.00.105+3.20.477+7.50.047+3.50.34856.1%346
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 counted1,410
Win rate50.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.2 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
Full fence53.9%+3.70.381128
Rectangle52.9%+2.60.510140
Half fence52.7%+2.50.551129
Breakable full fence52.6%+2.40.558133
Fence and open50.8%+0.60.92361 ·
Octagon50.7%+0.50.904146
Open48.9%-1.30.749141
Breakable half fence48.3%-1.90.622145
Low fence47.2%-3.00.449144
Single wall46.0%-4.20.252161
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 3.73 on 9 df, p 0.928

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.9%128+1.30.837+1.20.848+5.60.353+6.70.271+8.00.180+3.10.691+5.00.415+1.10.863+3.20.594
Breakable full fence-1.30.83752.6%133-0.10.989+4.30.468+5.40.368+6.70.255+1.80.815+3.70.541-0.20.970+1.90.745
Half fence-1.20.848+0.10.98952.7%129+4.40.463+5.50.365+6.80.253+1.90.807+3.80.535-0.10.981+2.00.737
Breakable half fence-5.60.353-4.30.468-4.40.46348.3%145+1.10.858+2.30.686-2.50.739-0.70.911-4.60.439-2.40.681
Low fence-6.70.271-5.40.368-5.50.365-1.10.85847.2%144+1.30.826-3.60.637-1.70.772-5.60.342-3.50.555
Single wall-8.00.180-6.70.255-6.80.253-2.30.686-1.30.82646.0%161-4.90.518-3.00.606-6.90.233-4.70.408
Fence and open-3.10.691-1.80.815-1.90.807+2.50.739+3.60.637+4.90.51850.8%61+1.90.806-2.00.790+0.10.986
Open-5.00.415-3.70.541-3.80.535+0.70.911+1.70.772+3.00.606-1.90.80648.9%141-3.90.511-1.70.767
Rectangle-1.10.863+0.20.970+0.10.981+4.60.439+5.60.342+6.90.233+2.00.790+3.90.51152.9%140+2.20.713
Octagon-3.20.594-1.90.745-2.00.737+2.40.681+3.50.555+4.70.408-0.10.986+1.70.767-2.20.71350.7%146
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 counted1,842
Win rate51.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.9 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
Octagon58.2%+6.90.064165
Fence and open53.1%+1.90.687111
Low fence52.4%+1.10.760164
Single wall52.4%+1.10.744212
Rectangle51.3%-0.00.992197
Full fence50.3%-1.00.790163
Breakable half fence50.3%-1.00.771181
Breakable full fence50.2%-1.10.748205
Half fence48.9%-2.40.495182
Open47.3%-4.00.250184
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 5.30 on 9 df, p 0.807

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.3%163+0.10.990+1.40.794+0.00.995-2.10.700-2.00.694-2.80.644+3.00.574-1.00.856-7.90.152
Breakable full fence-0.10.99050.2%205+1.30.792-0.00.995-2.20.675-2.10.666-2.90.621+3.00.560-1.00.837-7.90.128
Half fence-1.40.794-1.30.79248.9%182-1.40.793-3.50.511-3.50.494-4.20.480+1.60.757-2.40.645-9.30.084
Breakable half fence-0.00.995+0.00.995+1.40.79350.3%181-2.20.688-2.10.681-2.90.633+3.00.567-1.00.847-7.90.141
Low fence+2.10.700+2.20.675+3.50.511+2.20.68852.4%164+0.10.988-0.70.907+5.20.337+1.20.825-5.70.295
Single wall+2.00.694+2.10.666+3.50.494+2.10.681-0.10.98852.4%212-0.80.892+5.10.314+1.10.826-5.80.260
Fence and open+2.80.644+2.90.621+4.20.480+2.90.633+0.70.907+0.80.89253.1%111+5.90.329+1.90.751-5.00.409
Open-3.00.574-3.00.560-1.60.757-3.00.567-5.20.337-5.10.314-5.90.32947.3%184-4.00.437-10.90.042
Rectangle+1.00.856+1.00.837+2.40.645+1.00.847-1.20.825-1.10.826-1.90.751+4.00.43751.3%197-6.90.188
Octagon+7.90.152+7.90.128+9.30.084+7.90.141+5.70.295+5.80.260+5.00.409+10.90.042+6.90.18858.2%165
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 counted332
Win rate56.6%
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
Octagon68.6%+11.90.13235 ·
Full fence61.8%+5.10.52334 ·
Half fence59.0%+2.30.75339 ·
Fence and open57.9%+1.30.90919 ·
Rectangle57.5%+0.80.90347 ·
Single wall57.1%+0.50.95428 ·
Open54.8%-1.80.83331 ·
Breakable half fence53.3%-3.30.70330 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%-6.60.58416 ·
Low fence48.6%-8.00.29937 ·
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 3.89 on 9 df, p 0.918

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence61.8%34+11.80.432+2.80.808+8.40.496+13.10.267+4.60.712+3.90.782+6.90.571+4.30.696-6.80.553
Breakable full fence-11.80.43250.0%16-9.00.542-3.30.829+1.40.928-7.10.647-7.90.640-4.80.753-7.50.605-18.60.203
Half fence-2.80.808+9.00.54259.0%39+5.60.639+10.30.367+1.80.881+1.10.938+4.10.728+1.50.886-9.60.392
Breakable half fence-8.40.496+3.30.829-5.60.63953.3%30+4.70.703-3.80.771-4.60.754-1.50.906-4.10.723-15.20.208
Low fence-13.10.267-1.40.928-10.30.367-4.70.70348.6%37-8.50.497-9.20.512-6.20.611-8.80.422-19.90.087
Single wall-4.60.712+7.10.647-1.80.881+3.80.771+8.50.49757.1%28-0.80.959+2.30.859-0.30.979-11.40.349
Fence and open-3.90.782+7.90.640-1.10.938+4.60.754+9.20.512+0.80.95957.9%19+3.00.833+0.40.973-10.70.433
Open-6.90.571+4.80.753-4.10.728+1.50.906+6.20.611-2.30.859-3.00.83354.8%31-2.60.820-13.70.251
Rectangle-4.30.696+7.50.605-1.50.886+4.10.723+8.80.422+0.30.979-0.40.973+2.60.82057.5%47-11.10.304
Octagon+6.80.553+18.60.203+9.60.392+15.20.208+19.90.087+11.40.349+10.70.433+13.70.251+11.10.30468.6%35
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.