VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Brad vs Taka

Brad vs Taka in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Brad wins 45.4% of 1,358 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 2 of 9 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,358
Win rate45.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches12.7 pts
Survive correction2
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
Rectangle58.1%+12.70.002129
Full fence49.7%+4.20.268151
Fence and open49.2%+3.80.52965 ·
Open48.6%+3.20.412146
Octagon48.3%+2.90.512118
Single wall47.0%+1.60.678151
Breakable full fence43.2%-2.20.584132
Half fence43.0%-2.50.519149
Breakable half fence37.2%-8.20.056121
Low fence32.8%-12.70.004119
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 22.59 on 9 df, p 0.007

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.7%151+6.50.275+6.70.243+12.50.039+16.90.005+2.60.645+0.40.953+1.00.858-8.50.157+1.40.824
Breakable full fence-6.50.27543.2%132+0.20.969+6.00.332+10.40.090-3.80.518-6.00.422-5.50.363-15.00.016-5.10.417
Half fence-6.70.243-0.20.96943.0%149+5.80.337+10.20.089-4.10.479-6.30.396-5.70.328-15.20.012-5.40.383
Breakable half fence-12.50.039-6.00.332-5.80.33737.2%121+4.40.473-9.80.103-12.00.112-11.40.060-20.9<0.001-11.10.082
Low fence-16.90.005-10.40.090-10.20.089-4.40.47332.8%119-14.20.018-16.50.028-15.90.009-25.4<0.001-15.50.015
Single wall-2.60.645+3.80.518+4.10.479+9.80.103+14.20.01847.0%151-2.20.765-1.60.781-11.10.063-1.30.834
Fence and open-0.40.953+6.00.422+6.30.396+12.00.112+16.50.028+2.20.76549.2%65+0.60.936-8.90.239+0.90.905
Open-1.00.858+5.50.363+5.70.328+11.40.060+15.90.009+1.60.781-0.60.93648.6%146-9.50.115+0.30.958
Rectangle+8.50.157+15.00.016+15.20.012+20.9<0.001+25.4<0.001+11.10.063+8.90.239+9.50.11558.1%129+9.80.122
Octagon-1.40.824+5.10.417+5.40.383+11.10.082+15.50.015+1.30.834-0.90.905-0.30.958-9.80.12248.3%118
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 counted437
Win rate48.5%
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
Fence and open64.0%+15.50.11125 ·
Octagon63.2%+14.70.05938 ·
Rectangle59.0%+10.50.17139 ·
Single wall55.0%+6.50.38940 ·
Full fence50.0%+1.50.83942 ·
Open49.0%+0.50.94549 ·
Low fence45.0%-3.50.64140 ·
Half fence42.3%-6.20.34052 ·
Breakable full fence38.5%-10.10.18839 ·
Breakable half fence36.5%-12.00.06652 ·
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: 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 13.60 on 9 df, p 0.137

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%42+11.50.296+7.70.457+13.50.189+5.00.650-5.00.650-14.00.265+1.00.923-9.00.418-13.20.236
Breakable full fence-11.50.29638.5%39-3.90.712+1.90.851-6.50.556-16.50.141-25.50.046-10.50.324-20.50.070-24.70.030
Half fence-7.70.457+3.90.71242.3%52+5.80.547-2.70.796-12.70.227-21.70.075-6.70.501-16.70.116-20.90.051
Breakable half fence-13.50.189-1.90.851-5.80.54736.5%52-8.50.412-18.50.077-27.50.023-12.40.206-22.40.034-26.60.013
Low fence-5.00.650+6.50.556+2.70.796+8.50.41245.0%40-10.00.371-19.00.136-4.00.708-14.00.214-18.20.108
Single wall+5.00.650+16.50.141+12.70.227+18.50.077+10.00.37155.0%40-9.00.474+6.00.572-4.00.721-8.20.464
Fence and open+14.00.265+25.50.046+21.70.075+27.50.023+19.00.136+9.00.47464.0%25+15.00.220+5.00.688+0.80.946
Open-1.00.923+10.50.324+6.70.501+12.40.206+4.00.708-6.00.572-15.00.22049.0%49-10.00.350-14.20.187
Rectangle+9.00.418+20.50.070+16.70.116+22.40.034+14.00.214+4.00.721-5.00.688+10.00.35059.0%39-4.20.707
Octagon+13.20.236+24.70.030+20.90.051+26.60.013+18.20.108+8.20.464-0.80.946+14.20.187+4.20.70763.2%38
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 counted772
Win rate45.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.0 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
Rectangle61.0%+15.40.00477 ·
Full fence50.6%+5.00.31789
Open48.8%+3.20.54082
Breakable full fence47.6%+2.00.70582
Half fence44.9%-0.70.89689
Octagon44.3%-1.30.81770 ·
Single wall44.1%-1.50.75593
Breakable half fence40.0%-5.60.36560 ·
Fence and open36.4%-9.20.27633 ·
Low fence29.8%-15.80.01357 ·
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 16.46 on 9 df, p 0.058

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.6%89+3.00.695+5.60.453+10.60.205+20.70.013+6.50.382+14.20.163+1.80.816-10.50.176+6.30.432
Breakable full fence-3.00.69547.6%82+2.60.732+7.60.370+17.70.036+3.50.645+11.20.274-1.20.876-13.50.088+3.30.686
Half fence-5.60.453-2.60.73244.9%89+4.90.550+15.10.068+0.80.907+8.60.395-3.80.615-16.10.038+0.70.934
Breakable half fence-10.60.205-7.60.370-4.90.55040.0%60+10.20.249-4.10.618+3.60.730-8.80.299-21.00.014-4.30.622
Low fence-20.70.013-17.70.036-15.10.068-10.20.24929.8%57-14.30.082-6.50.522-19.00.025-31.2<0.001-14.50.095
Single wall-6.50.382-3.50.645-0.80.907+4.10.618+14.30.08244.1%93+7.70.440-4.70.534-16.90.028-0.20.980
Fence and open-14.20.163-11.20.274-8.60.395-3.60.730+6.50.522-7.70.44036.4%33-12.40.226-24.70.017-7.90.447
Open-1.80.816+1.20.876+3.80.615+8.80.299+19.00.025+4.70.534+12.40.22648.8%82-12.30.121+4.50.580
Rectangle+10.50.176+13.50.088+16.10.038+21.00.014+31.2<0.001+16.90.028+24.70.017+12.30.12161.0%77+16.80.042
Octagon-6.30.432-3.30.686-0.70.934+4.30.622+14.50.095+0.20.980+7.90.447-4.50.580-16.80.04244.3%70
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 counted149
Win rate35.6%
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
Fence and open57.1%+21.60.2227 ·
Open46.7%+11.10.34415 ·
Full fence45.0%+9.40.34420 ·
Single wall44.4%+8.90.40218 ·
Rectangle38.5%+2.90.82013 ·
Breakable full fence27.3%-8.30.55011 ·
Half fence25.0%-10.60.5218 ·
Breakable half fence22.2%-13.30.3889 ·
Octagon20.0%-15.60.28710 ·
Low fence18.2%-17.40.06522 ·
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 9.11 on 9 df, p 0.427

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.0%20+17.70.332+20.00.328+22.80.242+26.80.060+0.60.973-12.10.580-1.70.922+6.50.710+25.00.180
Breakable full fence-17.70.33227.3%11+2.30.912+5.00.795+9.10.547-17.20.355-29.90.205-19.40.315-11.20.562+7.30.696
Half fence-20.00.328-2.30.91225.0%8+2.80.893+6.80.680-19.40.347-32.10.205-21.70.311-13.50.525+5.00.800
Breakable half fence-22.80.242-5.00.795-2.80.89322.2%9+4.00.796-22.20.260-34.90.152-24.40.231-16.20.421+2.20.906
Low fence-26.80.060-9.10.547-6.80.680-4.00.79618.2%22-26.30.071-39.00.045-28.50.063-20.30.185-1.80.903
Single wall-0.60.973+17.20.355+19.40.347+22.20.260+26.30.07144.4%18-12.70.568-2.20.898+6.00.739+24.40.196
Fence and open+12.10.580+29.90.205+32.10.205+34.90.152+39.00.045+12.70.56857.1%7+10.50.647+18.70.423+37.10.115
Open+1.70.922+19.40.315+21.70.311+24.40.231+28.50.063+2.20.898-10.50.64746.7%15+8.20.662+26.70.174
Rectangle-6.50.710+11.20.562+13.50.525+16.20.421+20.30.185-6.00.739-18.70.423-8.20.66238.5%13+18.50.340
Octagon-25.00.180-7.30.696-5.00.800-2.20.906+1.80.903-24.40.196-37.10.115-26.70.174-18.50.34020.0%10
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.