VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Jeffry

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,490
Win rate49.5%
Widest swing4.1 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
Open53.6%+4.10.313138
Breakable half fence52.9%+3.30.377157
Low fence52.2%+2.70.513136
Full fence51.1%+1.60.650176
Rectangle50.4%+0.80.837141
Single wall49.6%+0.10.978139
Octagon49.4%-0.20.964156
Half fence47.2%-2.30.535163
Breakable full fence46.9%-2.60.504145
Fence and open45.8%-3.80.55559 ·
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 3.10 on 9 df, p 0.960

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.1%176+4.20.450+3.90.473-1.70.752-1.10.851+1.50.792+5.40.475-2.50.661+0.80.890+1.80.746
Breakable full fence-4.20.45046.9%145-0.30.952-6.00.300-5.30.374-2.70.644+1.10.883-6.70.258-3.50.559-2.50.669
Half fence-3.90.473+0.30.95247.2%163-5.60.314-5.00.392-2.40.677+1.50.846-6.40.270-3.10.588-2.10.705
Breakable half fence+1.70.752+6.00.300+5.60.31452.9%157+0.70.910+3.20.579+7.10.352-0.80.897+2.50.665+3.50.535
Low fence+1.10.851+5.30.374+5.00.392-0.70.91052.2%136+2.60.670+6.50.408-1.40.814+1.90.758+2.90.627
Single wall-1.50.792+2.70.644+2.40.677-3.20.579-2.60.67049.6%139+3.90.618-4.00.507-0.70.905+0.30.962
Fence and open-5.40.475-1.10.883-1.50.846-7.10.352-6.50.408-3.90.61845.8%59-7.90.312-4.60.554-3.60.638
Open+2.50.661+6.70.258+6.40.270+0.80.897+1.40.814+4.00.507+7.90.31253.6%138+3.30.585+4.30.465
Rectangle-0.80.890+3.50.559+3.10.588-2.50.665-1.90.758+0.70.905+4.60.554-3.30.58550.4%141+1.00.864
Octagon-1.80.746+2.50.669+2.10.705-3.50.535-2.90.627-0.30.962+3.60.638-4.30.465-1.00.86449.4%156
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 counted1,359
Win rate49.0%
Widest swing-6.4 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
Open54.6%+5.60.179130
Breakable half fence53.2%+4.20.294141
Low fence51.3%+2.20.607119
Full fence50.3%+1.30.726159
Rectangle50.0%+1.00.809134
Breakable full fence48.5%-0.50.903134
Single wall47.7%-1.30.753130
Half fence46.9%-2.20.586143
Octagon46.4%-2.60.519140
Fence and open42.6%-6.40.33654 ·
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 4.51 on 9 df, p 0.874

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.3%159+1.80.758+3.50.548-2.90.619-0.90.876+2.60.657+7.70.327-4.30.466+0.30.957+3.90.502
Breakable full fence-1.80.75848.5%134+1.70.783-4.70.437-2.80.662+0.80.895+5.90.462-6.10.321-1.50.807+2.10.730
Half fence-3.50.548-1.70.78346.9%143-6.30.285-4.40.477-0.80.890+4.30.592-7.80.200-3.10.600+0.40.943
Breakable half fence+2.90.619+4.70.437+6.30.28553.2%141+1.90.756+5.50.366+10.60.185-1.40.814+3.20.597+6.80.257
Low fence+0.90.876+2.80.662+4.40.477-1.90.75651.3%119+3.60.574+8.70.291-3.40.596+1.30.841+4.80.438
Single wall-2.60.657-0.80.895+0.80.890-5.50.366-3.60.57447.7%130+5.10.528-6.90.264-2.30.708+1.30.835
Fence and open-7.70.327-5.90.462-4.30.592-10.60.185-8.70.291-5.10.52842.6%54-12.00.137-7.40.358-3.80.631
Open+4.30.466+6.10.321+7.80.200+1.40.814+3.40.596+6.90.264+12.00.13754.6%130+4.60.453+8.20.179
Rectangle-0.30.957+1.50.807+3.10.600-3.20.597-1.30.841+2.30.708+7.40.358-4.60.45350.0%134+3.60.554
Octagon-3.90.502-2.10.730-0.40.943-6.80.257-4.80.438-1.30.835+3.80.631-8.20.179-3.60.55446.4%140
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 counted131
Win rate55.0%
Widest swing-27.7 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 open80.0%+25.00.2515 ·
Single wall77.8%+22.80.1549 ·
Octagon75.0%+20.00.08616 ·
Full fence58.8%+3.90.73217 ·
Low fence58.8%+3.90.73217 ·
Rectangle57.1%+2.20.9057 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%-5.00.67016 ·
Half fence50.0%-5.00.62820 ·
Open37.5%-17.50.3068 ·
Breakable full fence27.3%-27.70.05411 ·
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 10.69 on 9 df, p 0.297

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence58.8%17+31.60.102+8.80.591+8.80.611+0.01.000-19.00.334-21.20.387+21.30.319+1.70.939-16.20.325
Breakable full fence-31.60.10227.3%11-22.70.220-22.70.238-31.60.102-50.50.025-52.70.049-10.20.636-29.90.205-47.70.014
Half fence-8.80.591+22.70.22050.0%20+0.01.000-8.80.591-27.80.160-30.00.227+12.50.549-7.10.745-25.00.126
Breakable half fence-8.80.611+22.70.238-0.01.00050.0%16-8.80.611-27.80.174-30.00.237+12.50.562-7.10.752-25.00.144
Low fence-0.01.000+31.60.102+8.80.591+8.80.61158.8%17-19.00.334-21.20.387+21.30.319+1.70.939-16.20.325
Single wall+19.00.334+50.50.025+27.80.160+27.80.174+19.00.33477.8%9-2.20.923+40.30.092+20.60.377+2.80.876
Fence and open+21.20.387+52.70.049+30.00.227+30.00.237+21.20.387+2.20.92380.0%5+42.50.135+22.90.408+5.00.819
Open-21.30.319+10.20.636-12.50.549-12.50.562-21.30.319-40.30.092-42.50.13537.5%8-19.60.447-37.50.074
Rectangle-1.70.939+29.90.205+7.10.745+7.10.752-1.70.939-20.60.377-22.90.408+19.60.44757.1%7-17.90.392
Octagon+16.20.325+47.70.014+25.00.126+25.00.144+16.20.325-2.80.876-5.00.819+37.50.074+17.90.39275.0%16
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.