VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Dural vs El Blaze

Dural vs El Blaze in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Dural wins 52.6% of 549 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18), with win rates on every stage type.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted549
Win rate52.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall61.2%+8.60.13567 ·
Octagon57.8%+5.10.47145 ·
Breakable full fence56.8%+4.20.56344 ·
Full fence53.9%+1.20.83665 ·
Fence and open51.5%-1.10.89433 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%-2.60.65364 ·
Half fence50.0%-2.60.68254 ·
Low fence50.0%-2.60.67058 ·
Rectangle44.4%-8.20.20454 ·
Open43.2%-9.40.23637 ·
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: 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

Dural's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.02 on 9 df, p 0.738

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.9%65-3.00.760+3.90.676+3.90.662+3.90.670-7.30.393+2.30.827+10.60.303+9.40.307-3.90.683
Breakable full fence+3.00.76056.8%44+6.80.501+6.80.486+6.80.494-4.40.646+5.30.644+13.60.224+12.40.223-1.00.927
Half fence-3.90.676-6.80.50150.0%54+0.01.000+0.01.000-11.20.217-1.50.891+6.80.526+5.60.563-7.80.440
Breakable half fence-3.90.662-6.80.486-0.01.00050.0%64+0.01.000-11.20.197-1.50.888+6.80.512+5.60.547-7.80.423
Low fence-3.90.670-6.80.494-0.01.000-0.01.00050.0%58-11.20.209-1.50.889+6.80.520+5.60.556-7.80.433
Single wall+7.30.393+4.40.646+11.20.217+11.20.197+11.20.20961.2%67+9.70.356+17.90.078+16.80.066+3.40.718
Fence and open-2.30.827-5.30.644+1.50.891+1.50.888+1.50.889-9.70.35651.5%33+8.30.489+7.10.521-6.30.583
Open-10.60.303-13.60.224-6.80.526-6.80.512-6.80.520-17.90.078-8.30.48943.2%37-1.20.910-14.50.190
Rectangle-9.40.307-12.40.223-5.60.563-5.60.547-5.60.556-16.80.066-7.10.521+1.20.91044.4%54-13.30.186
Octagon+3.90.683+1.00.927+7.80.440+7.80.423+7.80.433-3.40.718+6.30.583+14.50.190+13.30.18657.8%45
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 counted171
Win rate61.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall76.9%+15.50.23213 ·
Fence and open69.2%+7.80.54613 ·
Low fence68.8%+7.30.52616 ·
Half fence66.7%+5.30.62818 ·
Full fence65.5%+4.10.61829 ·
Breakable half fence57.1%-4.30.66821 ·
Open50.0%-11.40.6354 ·
Octagon47.6%-13.80.16621 ·
Rectangle45.5%-15.90.26111 ·
Breakable full fence33.3%-28.10.0769 ·
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

Dural's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.44 on 9 df, p 0.490

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence65.5%29+32.20.088-1.10.936+8.40.547-3.20.826-11.40.460-3.70.813+15.50.545+20.10.247+17.90.206
Breakable full fence-32.20.08833.3%9-33.30.100-23.80.232-35.40.087-43.60.041-35.90.096-16.70.569-12.10.582-14.30.469
Half fence+1.10.936+33.30.10066.7%18+9.50.542-2.10.897-10.20.535-2.60.880+16.70.531+21.20.260+19.10.232
Breakable half fence-8.40.547+23.80.232-9.50.54257.1%21-11.60.471-19.80.241-12.10.481+7.10.792+11.70.529+9.50.537
Low fence+3.20.826+35.40.087+2.10.897+11.60.47168.8%16-8.20.624-0.50.978+18.80.482+23.30.226+21.10.199
Single wall+11.40.460+43.60.041+10.20.535+19.80.241+8.20.62476.9%13+7.70.658+26.90.301+31.50.113+29.30.092
Fence and open+3.70.813+35.90.096+2.60.880+12.10.481+0.50.978-7.70.65869.2%13+19.20.482+23.80.239+21.60.217
Open-15.50.545+16.70.569-16.70.531-7.10.792-18.80.482-26.90.301-19.20.48250.0%4+4.50.876+2.40.930
Rectangle-20.10.247+12.10.582-21.20.260-11.70.529-23.30.226-31.50.113-23.80.239-4.50.87645.5%11-2.20.907
Octagon-17.90.206+14.30.469-19.10.232-9.50.537-21.10.199-29.30.092-21.60.217-2.40.930+2.20.90747.6%21
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 counted339
Win rate48.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon66.7%+18.30.08321 ·
Breakable full fence61.3%+12.90.13131 ·
Single wall58.0%+9.60.14050 ·
Breakable half fence48.8%+0.40.95641 ·
Full fence48.4%+0.00.99931 ·
Half fence44.1%-4.30.60034 ·
Low fence41.0%-7.30.32939 ·
Rectangle40.5%-7.80.31237 ·
Fence and open40.0%-8.40.44020 ·
Open40.0%-8.40.38425 ·
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: 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

Dural's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.96 on 9 df, p 0.354

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.4%31-12.90.307+4.30.730-0.40.974+7.40.538-9.60.399+8.40.557+8.40.530+7.80.516-18.30.193
Breakable full fence+12.90.30761.3%31+17.20.166+12.50.291+20.30.092+3.30.770+21.30.137+21.30.113+20.80.088-5.40.693
Half fence-4.30.730-17.20.16644.1%34-4.70.687+3.10.790-13.90.211+4.10.768+4.10.752+3.60.761-22.60.104
Breakable half fence+0.40.974-12.50.291+4.70.68748.8%41+7.80.486-9.20.380+8.80.518+8.80.487+8.20.465-17.90.180
Low fence-7.40.538-20.30.092-3.10.790-7.80.48641.0%39-17.00.112+1.00.939+1.00.935+0.50.966-25.60.058
Single wall+9.60.399-3.30.770+13.90.211+9.20.380+17.00.11258.0%50+18.00.173+18.00.141+17.50.107-8.70.495
Fence and open-8.40.557-21.30.137-4.10.768-8.80.518-1.00.939-18.00.17340.0%20+0.01.000-0.50.968-26.70.087
Open-8.40.530-21.30.113-4.10.752-8.80.487-1.00.935-18.00.141-0.01.00040.0%25-0.50.966-26.70.071
Rectangle-7.80.516-20.80.088-3.60.761-8.20.465-0.50.966-17.50.107+0.50.968+0.50.96640.5%37-26.10.056
Octagon+18.30.193+5.40.693+22.60.104+17.90.180+25.60.058+8.70.495+26.70.087+26.70.071+26.10.05666.7%21
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 counted39
Win rate51.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Dural's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable full fence75.0%+23.70.3164 ·
Low fence66.7%+15.40.5793 ·
Octagon66.7%+15.40.5793 ·
Rectangle66.7%+15.40.4126 ·
Open50.0%-1.30.9358 ·
Single wall50.0%-1.30.9574 ·
Full fence20.0%-31.30.1345 ·
Breakable half fence0.0%-51.30.1362 ·
Half fence0.0%-51.30.1362 ·
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

Dural's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.11 on 8 df, p 0.423

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallOpenRectOct
Full fence20.0%5-55.00.099+20.00.495+20.00.495-46.70.187-30.00.343-30.00.279-46.70.122-46.70.187
Breakable full fence+55.00.09975.0%4+75.00.083+75.00.083+8.30.809+25.00.465+25.00.408+8.30.778+8.30.809
Half fence-20.00.495-75.00.0830.0%2+0.01.000-66.70.136-50.00.221-50.00.197-66.70.102-66.70.136
Breakable half fence-20.00.495-75.00.083-0.01.0000.0%2-66.70.136-50.00.221-50.00.197-66.70.102-66.70.136
Low fence+46.70.187-8.30.809+66.70.136+66.70.13666.7%3+16.70.659+16.70.621+0.01.000+0.01.000
Single wall+30.00.343-25.00.465+50.00.221+50.00.221-16.70.65950.0%4+0.01.000-16.70.598-16.70.659
Open+30.00.279-25.00.408+50.00.197+50.00.197-16.70.621-0.01.00050.0%8-16.70.533-16.70.621
Rectangle+46.70.122-8.30.778+66.70.102+66.70.102-0.01.000+16.70.598+16.70.53366.7%6+0.01.000
Octagon+46.70.187-8.30.809+66.70.136+66.70.136-0.01.000+16.70.659+16.70.621-0.01.00066.7%3
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.