VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Jean

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,329
Win rate56.8%
Widest swing13.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open69.8%+13.00.08143 ·
Low fence60.8%+4.00.286158
Full fence60.3%+3.50.378141
Octagon59.1%+2.20.591127
Rectangle57.0%+0.20.963114
Breakable full fence56.7%-0.10.970150
Open54.3%-2.50.539129
Single wall54.2%-2.60.525131
Breakable half fence52.8%-4.00.309142
Half fence52.3%-4.50.268132
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

El Blaze'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 fence60.3%141+3.60.532+8.00.182+7.50.205-0.50.933+6.10.311-9.50.261+6.00.318+3.30.598+1.20.838
Breakable full fence-3.60.53256.7%150+4.40.460+3.90.509-4.10.466+2.50.678-13.10.123+2.40.687-0.30.955-2.40.688
Half fence-8.00.182-4.40.46052.3%132-0.60.928-8.50.146-1.90.754-17.50.044-2.00.747-4.80.456-6.80.272
Breakable half fence-7.50.205-3.90.509+0.60.92852.8%142-7.90.165-1.40.819-16.90.049-1.40.812-4.20.502-6.20.304
Low fence+0.50.933+4.10.466+8.50.146+7.90.16560.8%158+6.60.261-9.00.279+6.50.268+3.70.536+1.70.770
Single wall-6.10.311-2.50.678+1.90.754+1.40.819-6.60.26154.2%131-15.60.073-0.10.992-2.80.658-4.90.431
Fence and open+9.50.261+13.10.123+17.50.044+16.90.049+9.00.279+15.60.07369.8%43+15.50.074+12.80.145+10.70.212
Open-6.00.318-2.40.687+2.00.747+1.40.812-6.50.268+0.10.992-15.50.07454.3%129-2.80.666-4.80.439
Rectangle-3.30.598+0.30.955+4.80.456+4.20.502-3.70.536+2.80.658-12.80.145+2.80.66657.0%114-2.00.749
Octagon-1.20.838+2.40.688+6.80.272+6.20.304-1.70.770+4.90.431-10.70.212+4.80.439+2.00.74959.1%127
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
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 counted1,223
Win rate56.1%
Widest swing10.6 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open66.7%+10.60.17639 ·
Full fence60.3%+4.20.304131
Low fence59.2%+3.10.421147
Breakable full fence58.5%+2.40.547135
Rectangle57.7%+1.60.727111
Octagon56.5%+0.40.932108
Single wall54.1%-2.00.640122
Breakable half fence53.4%-2.70.505133
Open53.3%-2.80.509122
Half fence48.7%-7.40.093115
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.26 on 9 df, p 0.610

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.3%131+1.80.767+11.60.068+6.90.256+1.10.849+6.20.319-6.40.473+7.00.259+2.60.676+3.80.550
Breakable full fence-1.80.76758.5%135+9.80.120+5.10.397-0.70.910+4.40.475-8.20.360+5.20.398+0.90.892+2.00.749
Half fence-11.60.068-9.80.12048.7%115-4.70.461-10.50.091-5.40.406-18.00.052-4.60.481-9.00.177-7.80.245
Breakable half fence-6.90.256-5.10.397+4.70.46153.4%133-5.80.328-0.70.909-13.30.141+0.10.987-4.30.504-3.10.631
Low fence-1.10.849+0.70.910+10.50.091+5.80.32859.2%147+5.10.402-7.50.395+5.90.331+1.50.805+2.70.666
Single wall-6.20.319-4.40.475+5.40.406+0.70.909-5.10.40254.1%122-12.60.167+0.80.898-3.60.585-2.40.717
Fence and open+6.40.473+8.20.360+18.00.052+13.30.141+7.50.395+12.60.16766.7%39+13.40.142+9.00.323+10.20.267
Open-7.00.259-5.20.398+4.60.481-0.10.987-5.90.331-0.80.898-13.40.14253.3%122-4.40.502-3.20.626
Rectangle-2.60.676-0.90.892+9.00.177+4.30.504-1.50.805+3.60.585-9.00.323+4.40.50257.7%111+1.20.860
Octagon-3.80.550-2.00.749+7.80.245+3.10.631-2.70.666+2.40.717-10.20.267+3.20.626-1.20.86056.5%108
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
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 counted106
Win rate65.1%
Widest swing34.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open100.0%+34.90.1354 ·
Low fence81.8%+16.70.21911 ·
Half fence76.5%+11.40.28317 ·
Octagon73.7%+8.60.38619 ·
Open71.4%+6.30.7167 ·
Full fence60.0%-5.10.72210 ·
Single wall55.6%-9.50.5309 ·
Breakable half fence44.4%-20.60.1749 ·
Breakable full fence40.0%-25.10.02815 ·
Rectangle33.3%-31.80.2423 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 12.73 on 9 df, p 0.175

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.0%10+20.00.327-16.50.365+15.60.498-21.80.269+4.40.845-40.00.134-11.40.627+26.70.416-13.70.449
Breakable full fence-20.00.32740.0%15-36.50.036-4.40.831-41.80.033-15.60.459-60.00.033-31.40.170+6.70.829-33.70.048
Half fence+16.50.365+36.50.03676.5%17+32.00.102-5.30.736+20.90.272-23.50.281+5.00.795+43.10.133+2.80.847
Breakable half fence-15.60.498+4.40.831-32.00.10244.4%9-37.40.081-11.10.637-55.60.057-27.00.280+11.10.735-29.20.132
Low fence+21.80.269+41.80.033+5.30.736+37.40.08181.8%11+26.30.202-18.20.360+10.40.605+48.50.099+8.10.612
Single wall-4.40.845+15.60.459-20.90.272+11.10.637-26.30.20255.6%9-44.40.109-15.90.515+22.20.505-18.10.337
Fence and open+40.00.134+60.00.033+23.50.281+55.60.057+18.20.360+44.40.109100.0%4+28.60.237+66.70.053+26.30.246
Open+11.40.627+31.40.170-5.00.795+27.00.280-10.40.605+15.90.515-28.60.23771.4%7+38.10.260-2.20.908
Rectangle-26.70.416-6.70.829-43.10.133-11.10.735-48.50.099-22.20.505-66.70.053-38.10.26033.3%3-40.40.163
Octagon+13.70.449+33.70.048-2.80.847+29.20.132-8.10.612+18.10.337-26.30.246+2.20.908+40.40.16373.7%19
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
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.