VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Kage

El Blaze vs Kage in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 50.1% of 3,343 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 counted3,343
Win rate50.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.6 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
Single wall53.7%+3.60.163337
Rectangle51.8%+1.70.536309
Breakable half fence51.5%+1.40.573371
Full fence50.1%+0.10.987337
Open50.0%-0.10.970294
Breakable full fence49.5%-0.70.792366
Low fence49.4%-0.70.783316
Octagon49.3%-0.80.746351
Fence and open48.9%-1.20.739184
Half fence46.8%-3.30.183355
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 4.30 on 9 df, p 0.891

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.1%337+0.70.854+3.40.373-1.30.723+0.80.842-3.60.355+1.20.788+0.10.970-1.60.679+0.90.821
Breakable full fence-0.70.85449.5%366+2.70.469-2.00.582+0.10.982-4.30.259+0.50.905-0.60.889-2.30.547+0.20.965
Half fence-3.40.373-2.70.46946.8%355-4.70.203-2.60.500-7.00.068-2.10.635-3.20.411-5.00.197-2.50.502
Breakable half fence+1.30.723+2.00.582+4.70.20351.5%371+2.10.580-2.20.553+2.60.569+1.50.704-0.30.938+2.20.556
Low fence-0.80.842-0.10.982+2.60.500-2.10.58049.4%316-4.30.267+0.50.922-0.60.876-2.40.546+0.10.984
Single wall+3.60.355+4.30.259+7.00.068+2.20.553+4.30.26753.7%337+4.80.295+3.70.352+1.90.624+4.40.246
Fence and open-1.20.788-0.50.905+2.10.635-2.60.569-0.50.922-4.80.29548.9%184-1.10.817-2.90.538-0.40.934
Open-0.10.970+0.60.889+3.20.411-1.50.704+0.60.876-3.70.352+1.10.81750.0%294-1.80.662+0.70.857
Rectangle+1.60.679+2.30.547+5.00.197+0.30.938+2.40.546-1.90.624+2.90.538+1.80.66251.8%309+2.50.523
Octagon-0.90.821-0.20.965+2.50.502-2.20.556-0.10.984-4.40.246+0.40.934-0.70.857-2.50.52349.3%351
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 counted1,073
Win rate53.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.8 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
Single wall57.4%+4.10.353115
Full fence57.3%+4.00.363117
Half fence54.8%+1.50.75793
Low fence54.4%+1.10.807114
Breakable half fence53.8%+0.50.913119
Fence and open53.6%+0.30.96856 ·
Rectangle53.3%-0.00.993107
Octagon50.9%-2.40.588112
Breakable full fence49.5%-3.80.417103
Open46.5%-6.80.152101
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 4.38 on 9 df, p 0.885

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.3%117+7.80.250+2.40.725+3.50.590+2.90.660-0.10.984+3.70.647+10.70.114+4.00.548+6.40.333
Breakable full fence-7.80.25049.5%103-5.30.456-4.30.526-4.90.473-7.90.244-4.10.625+3.00.670-3.80.586-1.40.840
Half fence-2.40.725+5.30.45654.8%93+1.10.878+0.50.948-2.50.712+1.30.880+8.30.248+1.60.824+4.00.573
Breakable half fence-3.50.590+4.30.526-1.10.87853.8%119-0.60.926-3.60.579+0.20.979+7.20.284+0.50.939+2.90.660
Low fence-2.90.660+4.90.473-0.50.948+0.60.92654.4%114-3.00.647+0.80.920+7.90.250+1.10.868+3.50.599
Single wall+0.10.984+7.90.244+2.50.712+3.60.579+3.00.64757.4%115+3.80.637+10.90.111+4.10.537+6.50.326
Fence and open-3.70.647+4.10.625-1.30.880-0.20.979-0.80.920-3.80.63753.6%56+7.00.398+0.30.971+2.70.743
Open-10.70.114-3.00.670-8.30.248-7.20.284-7.90.250-10.90.111-7.00.39846.5%101-6.70.331-4.40.525
Rectangle-4.00.548+3.80.586-1.60.824-0.50.939-1.10.868-4.10.537-0.30.971+6.70.33153.3%107+2.40.725
Octagon-6.40.333+1.40.840-4.00.573-2.90.660-3.50.599-6.50.326-2.70.743+4.40.525-2.40.72550.9%112
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 counted1,804
Win rate47.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.4 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
Rectangle50.8%+3.60.316179
Single wall50.3%+3.00.398179
Fence and open49.5%+2.20.66693
Breakable half fence49.2%+1.90.592181
Octagon47.9%+0.60.853192
Breakable full fence47.8%+0.50.874205
Open47.7%+0.50.905155
Low fence45.5%-1.80.634154
Full fence45.1%-2.10.551175
Half fence42.9%-4.40.160226
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 4.27 on 9 df, p 0.892

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.1%175-2.70.604+2.20.656-4.00.447-0.30.955-5.10.333-4.30.500-2.60.637-5.70.284-2.80.595
Breakable full fence+2.70.60447.8%205+4.90.309-1.40.789+2.40.659-2.50.628-1.70.791+0.10.991-3.00.553-0.10.982
Half fence-2.20.656-4.90.30942.9%226-6.20.208-2.50.625-7.40.140-6.50.286-4.80.353-7.90.113-5.00.306
Breakable half fence+4.00.447+1.40.789+6.20.20849.2%181+3.70.497-1.10.833-0.30.964+1.40.794-1.70.752+1.20.809
Low fence+0.30.955-2.40.659+2.50.625-3.70.49745.5%154-4.80.380-4.00.541-2.30.687-5.40.327-2.50.648
Single wall+5.10.333+2.50.628+7.40.140+1.10.833+4.80.38050.3%179+0.80.898+2.50.644-0.60.916+2.40.649
Fence and open+4.30.500+1.70.791+6.50.286+0.30.964+4.00.541-0.80.89849.5%93+1.70.793-1.40.830+1.50.807
Open+2.60.637-0.10.991+4.80.353-1.40.794+2.30.687-2.50.644-1.70.79347.7%155-3.10.572-0.20.974
Rectangle+5.70.284+3.00.553+7.90.113+1.70.752+5.40.327+0.60.916+1.40.830+3.10.57250.8%179+2.90.574
Octagon+2.80.595+0.10.982+5.00.306-1.20.809+2.50.648-2.40.649-1.50.807+0.20.974-2.90.57447.9%192
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 counted466
Win rate53.6%
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
Open68.4%+14.80.05738 ·
Single wall58.1%+4.50.53543 ·
Breakable full fence55.2%+1.50.80458 ·
Breakable half fence53.5%-0.10.98171 ·
Rectangle52.2%-1.50.88423 ·
Full fence51.1%-2.50.72045 ·
Octagon51.1%-2.60.70847 ·
Half fence50.0%-3.60.64836 ·
Low fence50.0%-3.60.59348 ·
Fence and open40.0%-13.70.09235 ·
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 7.02 on 9 df, p 0.635

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.1%45-4.10.682+1.10.921-2.40.800+1.10.915-7.00.508+11.10.323-17.30.110-1.10.934+0.10.996
Breakable full fence+4.10.68255.2%58+5.20.625+1.60.851+5.20.595-3.00.766+15.20.156-13.20.194+3.00.807+4.10.675
Half fence-1.10.921-5.20.62550.0%36-3.50.730+0.01.000-8.10.469+10.00.397-18.40.107-2.20.871-1.10.923
Breakable half fence+2.40.800-1.60.851+3.50.73053.5%71+3.50.706-4.60.631+13.50.190-14.90.132+1.40.910+2.50.794
Low fence-1.10.915-5.20.595-0.01.000-3.50.70650.0%48-8.10.437+10.00.367-18.40.085-2.20.864-1.10.917
Single wall+7.00.508+3.00.766+8.10.469+4.60.631+8.10.43758.1%43+18.10.111-10.30.339+6.00.642+7.10.501
Fence and open-11.10.323-15.20.156-10.00.397-13.50.190-10.00.367-18.10.11140.0%35-28.40.015-12.20.362-11.10.320
Open+17.30.110+13.20.194+18.40.107+14.90.132+18.40.085+10.30.339+28.40.01568.4%38+16.20.204+17.40.106
Rectangle+1.10.934-3.00.807+2.20.871-1.40.910+2.20.864-6.00.642+12.20.362-16.20.20452.2%23+1.10.930
Octagon-0.10.996-4.10.675+1.10.923-2.50.794+1.10.917-7.10.501+11.10.320-17.40.106-1.10.93051.1%47
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.