VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Dural vs Vanessa

Dural vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Dural wins 54.9% of 423 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 counted423
Win rate54.9%
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
Low fence68.2%+13.30.06044 ·
Breakable half fence67.5%+12.70.09140 ·
Single wall65.0%+10.20.17540 ·
Octagon59.5%+4.60.55537 ·
Rectangle54.8%-0.10.99142 ·
Open51.2%-3.60.62341 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%-4.80.52938 ·
Fence and open47.6%-7.20.49521 ·
Full fence46.1%-8.70.17952 ·
Half fence39.0%-15.80.03241 ·
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 14.49 on 9 df, p 0.106

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.1%52-3.90.718+7.10.491-21.40.041-22.00.030-18.90.072-1.50.910-5.10.627-8.60.407-13.30.216
Breakable full fence+3.90.71850.0%38+11.00.326-17.50.116-18.20.094-15.00.180+2.40.861-1.20.914-4.80.670-9.50.411
Half fence-7.10.491-11.00.32639.0%41-28.50.010-29.20.007-26.00.019-8.60.516-12.20.267-15.70.151-20.40.071
Breakable half fence+21.40.041+17.50.116+28.50.01067.5%40-0.70.947+2.50.813+19.90.131+16.30.136+12.70.237+8.00.464
Low fence+22.00.030+18.20.094+29.20.007+0.70.94768.2%44+3.20.757+20.60.111+17.00.111+13.40.201+8.70.415
Single wall+18.90.072+15.00.180+26.00.019-2.50.813-3.20.75765.0%40+17.40.190+13.80.209+10.20.345+5.50.616
Fence and open+1.50.910-2.40.861+8.60.516-19.90.131-20.60.111-17.40.19047.6%21-3.60.788-7.10.593-11.80.384
Open+5.10.627+1.20.914+12.20.267-16.30.136-17.00.111-13.80.209+3.60.78851.2%41-3.50.746-8.20.465
Rectangle+8.60.407+4.80.670+15.70.151-12.70.237-13.40.201-10.20.345+7.10.593+3.50.74654.8%42-4.70.674
Octagon+13.30.216+9.50.411+20.40.071-8.00.464-8.70.415-5.50.616+11.80.384+8.20.465+4.70.67459.5%37
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 counted183
Win rate59.0%
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
Low fence100.0%+41.00.0109 ·
Rectangle78.6%+19.60.12214 ·
Breakable half fence71.4%+12.40.32614 ·
Open64.7%+5.70.61717 ·
Octagon61.9%+2.90.77521 ·
Single wall61.5%+2.50.84813 ·
Breakable full fence58.3%-0.70.94224 ·
Fence and open53.9%-5.20.69413 ·
Full fence44.8%-14.20.09029 ·
Half fence30.0%-29.00.00520 ·
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 19.15 on 9 df, p 0.024

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.8%29-13.50.328+14.80.295-26.60.101-55.20.003-16.70.317-9.00.588-19.90.193-33.70.037-17.10.233
Breakable full fence+13.50.32858.3%24+28.30.060-13.10.420-41.70.020-3.20.850+4.50.793-6.40.680-20.20.205-3.60.807
Half fence-14.80.295-28.30.06030.0%20-41.40.017-70.0<0.001-31.50.073-23.90.171-34.70.035-48.60.005-31.90.041
Breakable half fence+26.60.101+13.10.420+41.40.01771.4%14-28.60.078+9.90.586+17.60.345+6.70.690-7.10.663+9.50.561
Low fence+55.20.003+41.70.020+70.0<0.001+28.60.078100.0%9+38.50.034+46.10.017+35.30.042+21.40.136+38.10.031
Single wall+16.70.317+3.20.850+31.50.073-9.90.586-38.50.03461.5%13+7.70.691-3.20.858-17.00.333-0.40.983
Fence and open+9.00.588-4.50.793+23.90.171-17.60.345-46.10.017-7.70.69153.9%13-10.90.547-24.70.173-8.10.643
Open+19.90.193+6.40.680+34.70.035-6.70.690-35.30.042+3.20.858+10.90.54764.7%17-13.90.397+2.80.859
Rectangle+33.70.037+20.20.205+48.60.005+7.10.663-21.40.136+17.00.333+24.70.173+13.90.39778.6%14+16.70.298
Octagon+17.10.233+3.60.807+31.90.041-9.50.561-38.10.031+0.40.983+8.10.643-2.80.859-16.70.29861.9%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 counted219
Win rate53.0%
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
Single wall76.2%+23.20.02521 ·
Breakable half fence66.7%+13.70.15424 ·
Low fence61.3%+8.30.31631 ·
Octagon53.3%+0.40.97715 ·
Full fence50.0%-3.00.76922 ·
Fence and open50.0%-3.00.8836 ·
Half fence47.4%-5.60.60919 ·
Rectangle42.9%-10.10.25128 ·
Open40.9%-12.10.23222 ·
Breakable full fence38.5%-14.50.28013 ·
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 11.06 on 9 df, p 0.272

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%22+11.50.508+2.60.867-16.70.251-11.30.414-26.20.076+0.01.000+9.10.545+7.10.615-3.30.842
Breakable full fence-11.50.50838.5%13-8.90.618-28.20.098-22.80.165-37.70.028-11.50.636-2.50.886-4.40.790-14.90.431
Half fence-2.60.867+8.90.61847.4%19-19.30.203-13.90.336-28.80.060-2.60.910+6.50.678+4.50.760-6.00.730
Breakable half fence+16.70.251+28.20.098+19.30.20366.7%24+5.40.681-9.50.482+16.70.449+25.80.080+23.80.086+13.30.405
Low fence+11.30.414+22.80.165+13.90.336-5.40.68161.3%31-14.90.261+11.30.606+20.40.143+18.40.157+8.00.607
Single wall+26.20.076+37.70.028+28.80.060+9.50.482+14.90.26176.2%21+26.20.215+35.30.019+33.30.020+22.90.151
Fence and open-0.01.000+11.50.636+2.60.910-16.70.449-11.30.606-26.20.21550.0%6+9.10.690+7.10.749-3.30.890
Open-9.10.545+2.50.886-6.50.678-25.80.080-20.40.143-35.30.019-9.10.69040.9%22-1.90.890-12.40.457
Rectangle-7.10.615+4.40.790-4.50.760-23.80.086-18.40.157-33.30.020-7.10.749+1.90.89042.9%28-10.50.512
Octagon+3.30.842+14.90.431+6.00.730-13.30.405-8.00.607-22.90.151+3.30.890+12.40.457+10.50.51253.3%15
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 counted21
Win rate38.1%
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
Octagon100.0%+61.90.1911 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%+11.90.7162 ·
Half fence50.0%+11.90.7162 ·
Low fence50.0%+11.90.5864 ·
Open50.0%+11.90.7162 ·
Single wall33.3%-4.80.7766 ·
Breakable full fence0.0%-38.10.4211 ·
Full fence0.0%-38.10.4211 ·
Fence and open0.0%-38.10.2432 ·
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 4.75 on 8 df, p 0.784

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenOct
Full fence0.0%1+0.01.000-50.00.386-50.00.386-50.00.361-33.30.495+0.01.000-50.00.386-100.00.157
Breakable full fence-0.01.0000.0%1-50.00.386-50.00.386-50.00.361-33.30.495+0.01.000-50.00.386-100.00.157
Half fence+50.00.386+50.00.38650.0%2+0.01.000+0.01.000+16.70.673+50.00.248+0.01.000-50.00.386
Breakable half fence+50.00.386+50.00.386-0.01.00050.0%2+0.01.000+16.70.673+50.00.248+0.01.000-50.00.386
Low fence+50.00.361+50.00.361-0.01.000-0.01.00050.0%4+16.70.598+50.00.221+0.01.000-50.00.361
Single wall+33.30.495+33.30.495-16.70.673-16.70.673-16.70.59833.3%6+33.30.346-16.70.673-66.70.212
Fence and open-0.01.000-0.01.000-50.00.248-50.00.248-50.00.221-33.30.3460.0%2-50.00.248-100.00.083
Open+50.00.386+50.00.386-0.01.000-0.01.000-0.01.000+16.70.673+50.00.24850.0%2-50.00.386
Octagon+100.00.157+100.00.157+50.00.386+50.00.386+50.00.361+66.70.212+100.00.083+50.00.386100.0%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.