VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Jean

El Blaze vs Jean in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 52.1% of 2,554 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 10 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted2,554
Win rate52.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches13.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open65.1%+13.00.006106
Low fence56.2%+4.00.154276
Half fence53.9%+1.80.519297
Full fence53.3%+1.20.697242
Breakable full fence53.0%+0.90.748262
Octagon52.0%-0.10.965252
Rectangle49.4%-2.70.368247
Breakable half fence49.2%-2.90.333248
Single wall48.2%-3.90.192253
Open48.1%-4.00.169262
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 14.38 on 9 df, p 0.109

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.3%242+0.30.955-0.60.896+4.10.363-2.90.515+5.10.258-11.80.041+5.20.242+3.90.387+1.30.769
Breakable full fence-0.30.95553.0%262-0.80.846+3.90.383-3.10.469+4.80.273-12.00.035+5.00.256+3.70.409+1.10.808
Half fence+0.60.896+0.80.84653.9%297+4.70.276-2.30.582+5.70.186-11.20.045+5.80.172+4.50.298+1.90.659
Breakable half fence-4.10.363-3.90.383-4.70.27649.2%248-7.00.111+1.00.828-15.90.006+1.10.803-0.20.965-2.80.533
Low fence+2.90.515+3.10.469+2.30.582+7.00.11156.2%276+7.90.068-8.90.112+8.10.061+6.80.122+4.20.336
Single wall-5.10.258-4.80.273-5.70.186-1.00.828-7.90.06848.2%253-16.90.003+0.10.976-1.20.793-3.80.398
Fence and open+11.80.041+12.00.035+11.20.045+15.90.006+8.90.112+16.90.00365.1%106+17.00.003+15.70.007+13.10.023
Open-5.20.242-5.00.256-5.80.172-1.10.803-8.10.061-0.10.976-17.00.00348.1%262-1.30.769-3.90.378
Rectangle-3.90.387-3.70.409-4.50.298+0.20.965-6.80.122+1.20.793-15.70.007+1.30.76949.4%247-2.60.563
Octagon-1.30.769-1.10.808-1.90.659+2.80.533-4.20.336+3.80.398-13.10.023+3.90.378+2.60.56352.0%252
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 counted1,002
Win rate47.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches10.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open59.6%+11.90.07752 ·
Half fence58.0%+10.30.008143
Low fence52.6%+4.90.31297
Breakable full fence45.9%-1.80.70998
Open45.8%-1.90.69996
Rectangle45.3%-2.40.598106
Breakable half fence45.0%-2.60.59691
Octagon44.7%-3.00.514103
Full fence42.2%-5.50.29283
Single wall39.8%-7.90.10893
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: 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

El Blaze'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 fence42.2%83-3.80.613-15.90.021-2.90.701-10.40.163+2.40.748-17.40.048-3.70.622-3.10.669-2.50.733
Breakable full fence+3.80.61345.9%98-12.10.064+0.90.905-6.70.352+6.10.392-13.70.110+0.10.991+0.60.927+1.30.858
Half fence+15.90.021+12.10.06458.0%143+13.00.052+5.50.403+18.30.006-1.60.844+12.20.064+12.80.046+13.40.038
Breakable half fence+2.90.701-0.90.905-13.00.05245.0%91-7.50.302+5.30.470-14.60.094-0.80.915-0.20.974+0.40.956
Low fence+10.40.163+6.70.352-5.50.403+7.50.30252.6%97+12.80.077-7.00.410+6.80.349+7.30.299+7.90.263
Single wall-2.40.748-6.10.392-18.30.006-5.30.470-12.80.07739.8%93-19.80.022-6.00.401-5.50.434-4.90.490
Fence and open+17.40.048+13.70.110+1.60.844+14.60.094+7.00.410+19.80.02259.6%52+13.80.109+14.30.090+15.00.079
Open+3.70.622-0.10.991-12.20.064+0.80.915-6.80.349+6.00.401-13.80.10945.8%96+0.60.937+1.20.868
Rectangle+3.10.669-0.60.927-12.80.046+0.20.974-7.30.299+5.50.434-14.30.090-0.60.93745.3%106+0.60.928
Octagon+2.50.733-1.30.858-13.40.038-0.40.956-7.90.263+4.90.490-15.00.079-1.20.868-0.60.92844.7%103
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 counted1,436
Win rate54.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open67.3%+13.30.05749 ·
Full fence59.0%+5.00.205144
Breakable full fence58.5%+4.50.252147
Low fence56.5%+2.50.487168
Octagon54.3%+0.20.957129
Single wall53.0%-1.10.783151
Rectangle52.9%-1.10.777138
Breakable half fence52.0%-2.00.604148
Open48.4%-5.60.132159
Half fence46.7%-7.30.071137
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 11.90 on 9 df, p 0.219

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence59.0%144+0.50.928+12.30.039+7.00.229+2.50.658+6.00.296-8.30.302+10.60.065+6.10.300+4.80.428
Breakable full fence-0.50.92858.5%147+11.80.047+6.50.263+1.90.726+5.50.337-8.80.272+10.10.078+5.60.341+4.20.478
Half fence-12.30.039-11.80.04746.7%137-5.30.370-9.80.087-6.30.288-20.60.013-1.70.769-6.20.305-7.50.218
Breakable half fence-7.00.229-6.50.263+5.30.37052.0%148-4.50.421-0.90.869-15.30.061+3.60.529-0.90.883-2.20.710
Low fence-2.50.658-1.90.726+9.80.087+4.50.42156.5%168+3.60.523-10.80.176+8.10.142+3.60.523+2.30.695
Single wall-6.00.296-5.50.337+6.30.288+0.90.869-3.60.52353.0%151-14.40.078+4.50.423+0.10.989-1.30.830
Fence and open+8.30.302+8.80.272+20.60.013+15.30.061+10.80.176+14.40.07867.3%49+18.90.020+14.40.080+13.10.114
Open-10.60.065-10.10.078+1.70.769-3.60.529-8.10.142-4.50.423-18.90.02048.4%159-4.50.442-5.80.325
Rectangle-6.10.300-5.60.341+6.20.305+0.90.883-3.60.523-0.10.989-14.40.080+4.50.44252.9%138-1.40.823
Octagon-4.80.428-4.20.478+7.50.218+2.20.710-2.30.695+1.30.830-13.10.114+5.80.325+1.40.82354.3%129
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 counted116
Win rate66.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open100.0%+33.60.1045 ·
Low fence81.8%+15.40.25511 ·
Half fence76.5%+10.10.34017 ·
Octagon75.0%+8.60.37020 ·
Open71.4%+5.00.7707 ·
Full fence60.0%-6.40.57515 ·
Single wall55.6%-10.80.4749 ·
Breakable full fence47.1%-19.30.06817 ·
Breakable half fence44.4%-21.90.1479 ·
Rectangle33.3%-33.00.2203 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 12.03 on 9 df, p 0.211

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.0%15+12.90.464-16.50.316+15.60.459-21.80.234+4.40.831-40.00.091-11.40.604+26.70.396-15.00.344
Breakable full fence-12.90.46447.1%17-29.40.078+2.60.899-34.80.066-8.50.680-52.90.034-24.40.276+13.70.660-27.90.081
Half fence+16.50.316+29.40.07876.5%17+32.00.102-5.30.736+20.90.272-23.50.230+5.00.795+43.10.133+1.50.917
Breakable half fence-15.60.459-2.60.899-32.00.10244.4%9-37.40.081-11.10.637-55.60.038-27.00.280+11.10.735-30.60.109
Low fence+21.80.234+34.80.066+5.30.736+37.40.08181.8%11+26.30.202-18.20.308+10.40.605+48.50.099+6.80.664
Single wall-4.40.831+8.50.680-20.90.272+11.10.637-26.30.20255.6%9-44.40.078-15.90.515+22.20.505-19.40.295
Fence and open+40.00.091+52.90.034+23.50.230+55.60.038+18.20.308+44.40.078100.0%5+28.60.190+66.70.035+25.00.211
Open+11.40.604+24.40.276-5.00.795+27.00.280-10.40.605+15.90.515-28.60.19071.4%7+38.10.260-3.60.853
Rectangle-26.70.396-13.70.660-43.10.133-11.10.735-48.50.099-22.20.505-66.70.035-38.10.26033.3%3-41.70.144
Octagon+15.00.344+27.90.081-1.50.917+30.60.109-6.80.664+19.40.295-25.00.211+3.60.853+41.70.14475.0%20
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.