VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Jeffry

El Blaze vs Jeffry in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 49.4% of 3,310 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 counted3,310
Win rate49.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.4 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
Low fence52.7%+3.40.227292
Breakable half fence52.4%+3.10.211370
Open51.8%+2.40.398282
Rectangle50.6%+1.20.633356
Full fence50.4%+1.00.672363
Breakable full fence49.3%-0.10.972345
Fence and open49.1%-0.30.942165
Half fence48.0%-1.30.612333
Single wall47.4%-2.00.452325
Octagon46.3%-3.10.256311
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 5.37 on 9 df, p 0.801

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.4%363+1.10.762+2.40.533-2.00.584-2.30.554+3.00.428+1.30.778-1.40.732-0.10.968+4.10.287
Breakable full fence-1.10.76249.3%345+1.20.749-3.10.399-3.50.384+1.90.625+0.20.969-2.50.534-1.30.733+3.00.447
Half fence-2.40.533-1.20.74948.0%333-4.40.246-4.70.242+0.70.865-1.00.826-3.70.357-2.50.510+1.80.657
Breakable half fence+2.00.584+3.10.399+4.40.24652.4%370-0.30.937+5.00.184+3.30.475+0.70.867+1.90.614+6.10.111
Low fence+2.30.554+3.50.384+4.70.242+0.30.93752.7%292+5.40.184+3.60.453+1.00.817+2.20.581+6.40.114
Single wall-3.00.428-1.90.625-0.70.865-5.00.184-5.40.18447.4%325-1.70.721-4.40.281-3.20.407+1.10.785
Fence and open-1.30.778-0.20.969+1.00.826-3.30.475-3.60.453+1.70.72149.1%165-2.70.584-1.50.755+2.80.562
Open+1.40.732+2.50.534+3.70.357-0.70.867-1.00.817+4.40.281+2.70.58451.8%282+1.20.761+5.50.183
Rectangle+0.10.968+1.30.733+2.50.510-1.90.614-2.20.581+3.20.407+1.50.755-1.20.76150.6%356+4.30.272
Octagon-4.10.287-3.00.447-1.80.657-6.10.111-6.40.114-1.10.785-2.80.562-5.50.183-4.30.27246.3%311
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 counted1,531
Win rate49.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.9 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
Low fence55.0%+5.20.217129
Breakable full fence53.3%+3.50.344167
Breakable half fence52.7%+2.90.407186
Full fence51.3%+1.40.703156
Rectangle51.1%+1.30.714176
Fence and open51.1%+1.20.80694
Half fence49.3%-0.50.892142
Open48.7%-1.20.797113
Single wall45.2%-4.60.206168
Octagon43.0%-6.90.105128
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 6.95 on 9 df, p 0.642

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.3%156-2.00.718+2.00.732-1.40.795-3.80.527+6.00.277+0.20.973+2.60.673+0.10.979+8.30.163
Breakable full fence+2.00.71853.3%167+4.00.483+0.60.909-1.80.765+8.10.140+2.20.729+4.60.448+2.10.689+10.30.079
Half fence-2.00.732-4.00.48349.3%142-3.40.543-5.70.345+4.10.476-1.80.790+0.60.921-1.80.744+6.30.298
Breakable half fence+1.40.795-0.60.909+3.40.54352.7%186-2.40.681+7.50.161+1.60.797+4.00.501+1.60.768+9.70.090
Low fence+3.80.527+1.80.765+5.70.345+2.40.68155.0%129+9.80.094+4.00.557+6.40.323+3.90.500+12.10.053
Single wall-6.00.277-8.10.140-4.10.476-7.50.161-9.80.09445.2%168-5.80.365-3.40.571-5.90.274+2.30.697
Fence and open-0.20.973-2.20.729+1.80.790-1.60.797-4.00.557+5.80.36551.1%94+2.40.732-0.10.991+8.10.232
Open-2.60.673-4.60.448-0.60.921-4.00.501-6.40.323+3.40.571-2.40.73248.7%113-2.50.683+5.70.375
Rectangle-0.10.979-2.10.689+1.80.744-1.60.768-3.90.500+5.90.274+0.10.991+2.50.68351.1%176+8.20.159
Octagon-8.30.163-10.30.079-6.30.298-9.70.090-12.10.053-2.30.697-8.10.232-5.70.375-8.20.15943.0%128
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 counted1,615
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.6 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
Open55.1%+6.60.081158
Breakable half fence53.0%+4.60.217164
Rectangle49.4%+0.90.803166
Full fence49.2%+0.70.841183
Low fence49.0%+0.50.907143
Single wall48.3%-0.20.958145
Half fence47.1%-1.40.694170
Breakable full fence46.3%-2.20.557162
Octagon46.1%-2.40.517167
Fence and open43.9%-4.50.45166 ·
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 5.41 on 9 df, p 0.797

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.2%183+2.90.593+2.10.690-3.90.472+0.20.967+0.90.871+5.20.465-5.90.278-0.20.968+3.10.565
Breakable full fence-2.90.59346.3%162-0.80.889-6.80.223-2.60.643-2.00.729+2.40.746-8.80.117-3.10.574+0.20.973
Half fence-2.10.690+0.80.88947.1%170-6.00.274-1.90.739-1.20.829+3.10.666-8.00.147-2.30.668+0.90.861
Breakable half fence+3.90.472+6.80.223+6.00.27453.0%164+4.10.474+4.80.402+9.10.211-2.00.717+3.60.507+6.90.207
Low fence-0.20.967+2.60.643+1.90.739-4.10.47449.0%143+0.70.909+5.00.500-6.10.289-0.50.938+2.80.617
Single wall-0.90.871+2.00.729+1.20.829-4.80.402-0.70.90948.3%145+4.30.558-6.80.238-1.10.844+2.20.702
Fence and open-5.20.465-2.40.746-3.10.666-9.10.211-5.00.500-4.30.55843.9%66-11.10.129-5.50.453-2.20.765
Open+5.90.278+8.80.117+8.00.147+2.00.717+6.10.289+6.80.238+11.10.12955.1%158+5.70.308+8.90.107
Rectangle+0.20.968+3.10.574+2.30.668-3.60.507+0.50.938+1.10.844+5.50.453-5.70.30849.4%166+3.30.548
Octagon-3.10.565-0.20.973-0.90.861-6.90.207-2.80.617-2.20.702+2.20.765-8.90.107-3.30.54846.1%167
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 counted164
Win rate53.7%
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 open80.0%+26.30.2305 ·
Octagon75.0%+21.30.07216 ·
Single wall66.7%+13.00.34812 ·
Low fence65.0%+11.30.27820 ·
Rectangle57.1%+3.50.78514 ·
Full fence54.2%+0.50.95724 ·
Half fence47.6%-6.00.55221 ·
Breakable half fence45.0%-8.70.40720 ·
Breakable full fence37.5%-16.20.17216 ·
Open36.4%-17.30.23411 ·
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 10.13 on 9 df, p 0.340

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.2%24+16.70.301+6.50.661+9.20.545-10.80.467-12.50.473-25.80.286+17.80.328-3.00.859-20.80.182
Breakable full fence-16.70.30137.5%16-10.10.538-7.50.650-27.50.101-29.20.127-42.50.097+1.10.952-19.60.282-37.50.033
Half fence-6.50.661+10.10.53847.6%21+2.60.867-17.40.262-19.10.290-32.40.192+11.30.542-9.50.581-27.40.093
Breakable half fence-9.20.545+7.50.650-2.60.86745.0%20-20.00.204-21.70.234-35.00.161+8.60.641-12.10.486-30.00.070
Low fence+10.80.467+27.50.101+17.40.262+20.00.20465.0%20-1.70.923-15.00.520+28.60.125+7.90.643-10.00.517
Single wall+12.50.473+29.20.127+19.10.290+21.70.234+1.70.92366.7%12-13.30.582+30.30.146+9.50.619-8.30.629
Fence and open+25.80.286+42.50.097+32.40.192+35.00.161+15.00.520+13.30.58280.0%5+43.60.106+22.90.363+5.00.819
Open-17.80.328-1.10.952-11.30.542-8.60.641-28.60.125-30.30.146-43.60.10636.4%11-20.80.302-38.60.045
Rectangle+3.00.859+19.60.282+9.50.581+12.10.486-7.90.643-9.50.619-22.90.363+20.80.30257.1%14-17.90.301
Octagon+20.80.182+37.50.033+27.40.093+30.00.070+10.00.517+8.30.629-5.00.819+38.60.045+17.90.30175.0%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

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.