VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Dural vs Taka

Dural vs Taka in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Dural wins 46.5% of 314 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 counted314
Win rate46.5%
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
Rectangle53.9%+7.30.43326 ·
Breakable half fence53.1%+6.60.42832 ·
Full fence53.1%+6.60.42832 ·
Half fence50.0%+3.50.66534 ·
Breakable full fence48.6%+2.10.78037 ·
Open48.0%+1.50.87525 ·
Single wall44.4%-2.10.82327 ·
Fence and open42.9%-3.60.78014 ·
Low fence42.3%-4.20.50752 ·
Octagon25.0%-21.50.01728 ·
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 7.64 on 9 df, p 0.571

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.1%32+4.50.711+3.10.800+0.01.000+10.80.334+8.70.506+10.30.522+5.10.701-0.70.956+28.10.027
Breakable full fence-4.50.71148.6%37-1.40.909-4.50.711+6.30.553+4.20.739+5.80.712+0.70.960-5.20.685+23.60.052
Half fence-3.10.800+1.40.90950.0%34-3.10.800+7.70.484+5.60.666+7.10.653+2.00.879-3.90.768+25.00.044
Breakable half fence-0.01.000+4.50.711+3.10.80053.1%32+10.80.334+8.70.506+10.30.522+5.10.701-0.70.956+28.10.027
Low fence-10.80.334-6.30.553-7.70.484-10.80.33442.3%52-2.10.856-0.60.971-5.70.638-11.50.335+17.30.125
Single wall-8.70.506-4.20.739-5.60.666-8.70.506+2.10.85644.4%27+1.60.923-3.60.797-9.40.494+19.40.130
Fence and open-10.30.522-5.80.712-7.10.653-10.30.522+0.60.971-1.60.92342.9%14-5.10.757-11.00.507+17.90.238
Open-5.10.701-0.70.960-2.00.879-5.10.701+5.70.638+3.60.797+5.10.75748.0%25-5.80.676+23.00.081
Rectangle+0.70.956+5.20.685+3.90.768+0.70.956+11.50.335+9.40.494+11.00.507+5.80.67653.9%26+28.90.030
Octagon-28.10.027-23.60.052-25.00.044-28.10.027-17.30.125-19.40.130-17.90.238-23.00.081-28.90.03025.0%28
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 counted145
Win rate49.0%
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 half fence70.0%+21.00.16810 ·
Fence and open66.7%+17.70.5353 ·
Rectangle62.5%+13.50.4318 ·
Breakable full fence60.0%+11.00.36715 ·
Open56.2%+7.30.53716 ·
Full fence50.0%+1.00.94610 ·
Low fence48.1%-0.80.92527 ·
Half fence42.9%-6.10.54521 ·
Single wall38.5%-10.50.42713 ·
Octagon17.6%-31.30.00617 ·
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 11.32 on 9 df, p 0.254

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%10-10.00.622+7.10.709-20.00.361+1.90.920+11.50.580-16.70.612-6.20.756-12.50.596+32.40.075
Breakable full fence+10.00.62260.0%15+17.10.310-10.00.610+11.80.461+21.50.256-6.70.829+3.80.833-2.50.907+42.40.014
Half fence-7.10.709-17.10.31042.9%21-27.10.157-5.30.715+4.40.800-23.80.439-13.40.419-19.60.344+25.20.096
Breakable half fence+20.00.361+10.00.610+27.10.15770.0%10+21.90.236+31.50.133+3.30.913+13.80.483+7.50.737+52.40.007
Low fence-1.90.920-11.80.461+5.30.715-21.90.23648.1%27+9.70.564-18.50.543-8.10.607-14.30.476+30.50.041
Single wall-11.50.580-21.50.256-4.40.800-31.50.133-9.70.56438.5%13-28.20.375-17.80.340-24.00.284+20.80.201
Fence and open+16.70.612+6.70.829+23.80.439-3.30.913+18.50.543+28.20.37566.7%3+10.40.737+4.20.898+49.00.071
Open+6.20.756-3.80.833+13.40.419-13.80.483+8.10.607+17.80.340-10.40.73756.2%16-6.20.770+38.60.021
Rectangle+12.50.596+2.50.907+19.60.344-7.50.737+14.30.476+24.00.284-4.20.898+6.20.77062.5%8+44.90.025
Octagon-32.40.075-42.40.014-25.20.096-52.40.007-30.50.041-20.80.201-49.00.071-38.60.021-44.90.02517.6%17
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 counted156
Win rate43.0%
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
Half fence61.5%+18.60.15713 ·
Full fence52.6%+9.70.36319 ·
Rectangle50.0%+7.00.52118 ·
Single wall50.0%+7.00.60812 ·
Fence and open44.4%+1.50.9269 ·
Breakable full fence40.9%-2.00.83522 ·
Breakable half fence40.0%-3.00.77520 ·
Octagon36.4%-6.60.64711 ·
Low fence31.8%-11.10.25522 ·
Open25.0%-17.90.2928 ·
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 5.61 on 9 df, p 0.778

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.6%19+11.70.453-8.90.618+12.60.429+20.80.177+2.60.886+8.20.686+27.60.187+2.60.873+16.30.389
Breakable full fence-11.70.45340.9%22-20.60.238+0.90.952+9.10.531-9.10.610-3.50.856+15.90.424-9.10.565+4.50.801
Half fence+8.90.618+20.60.23861.5%13+21.50.226+29.70.086+11.50.561+17.10.429+36.50.104+11.50.524+25.20.219
Breakable half fence-12.60.429-0.90.952-21.50.22640.0%20+8.20.580-10.00.581-4.40.822+15.00.454-10.00.536+3.60.842
Low fence-20.80.177-9.10.531-29.70.086-8.20.58031.8%22-18.20.297-12.60.505+6.80.719-18.20.243-4.50.794
Single wall-2.60.886+9.10.610-11.50.561+10.00.581+18.20.29750.0%12+5.60.801+25.00.264+0.01.000+13.60.510
Fence and open-8.20.686+3.50.856-17.10.429+4.40.822+12.60.505-5.60.80144.4%9+19.40.402-5.60.785+8.10.714
Open-27.60.187-15.90.424-36.50.104-15.00.454-6.80.719-25.00.264-19.40.40225.0%8-25.00.234-11.40.599
Rectangle-2.60.873+9.10.565-11.50.524+10.00.536+18.20.243-0.01.000+5.60.785+25.00.23450.0%18+13.60.474
Octagon-16.30.389-4.50.801-25.20.219-3.60.842+4.50.794-13.60.510-8.10.714+11.40.599-13.60.47436.4%11
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 counted13
Win rate61.5%
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 half fence100.0%+38.50.2242 ·
Open100.0%+38.50.4111 ·
Full fence66.7%+5.10.8353 ·
Low fence66.7%+5.10.8353 ·
Single wall50.0%-11.50.7152 ·
Fence and open0.0%-61.50.0522 ·
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 5.25 on 5 df, p 0.386

StageFullBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpen
Full fence66.7%3-33.30.361+0.01.000+16.70.709+66.70.136-33.30.505
Breakable half fence+33.30.361100.0%2+33.30.361+50.00.248+100.00.046+0.01.000
Low fence-0.01.000-33.30.36166.7%3+16.70.709+66.70.136-33.30.505
Single wall-16.70.709-50.00.248-16.70.70950.0%2+50.00.248-50.00.386
Fence and open-66.70.136-100.00.046-66.70.136-50.00.2480.0%2-100.00.083
Open+33.30.505-0.01.000+33.30.505+50.00.386+100.00.083100.0%1
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.