VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Kage

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,989
Win rate48.4%
Widest swing4.7 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
Open53.1%+4.70.215162
Single wall51.5%+3.10.358196
Breakable full fence51.1%+2.70.390227
Rectangle50.9%+2.50.500173
Breakable half fence48.9%+0.50.883223
Octagon46.8%-1.60.631205
Fence and open46.3%-2.10.628121
Low fence45.9%-2.50.475183
Half fence45.3%-3.10.326225
Full fence44.7%-3.70.272199
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 6.10 on 9 df, p 0.730

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.7%199-6.40.189-0.60.900-4.20.393-1.20.817-6.80.176-1.60.786-8.40.114-6.20.237-2.10.671
Breakable full fence+6.40.18951.1%227+5.80.220+2.20.637+5.20.295-0.40.930+4.80.392-2.00.699+0.20.963+4.30.375
Half fence+0.60.900-5.80.22045.3%225-3.50.452-0.60.909-6.20.204-0.90.866-7.80.132-5.50.273-1.50.756
Breakable half fence+4.20.393-2.20.637+3.50.45248.9%223+3.00.550-2.60.588+2.60.645-4.20.415-2.00.695+2.00.672
Low fence+1.20.817-5.20.295+0.60.909-3.00.55045.9%183-5.60.273-0.40.948-7.20.183-5.00.349-0.90.855
Single wall+6.80.176+0.40.930+6.20.204+2.60.588+5.60.27351.5%196+5.20.364-1.60.769+0.70.899+4.70.347
Fence and open+1.60.786-4.80.392+0.90.866-2.60.645+0.40.948-5.20.36446.3%121-6.80.257-4.60.439-0.60.924
Open+8.40.114+2.00.699+7.80.132+4.20.415+7.20.183+1.60.769+6.80.25753.1%162+2.20.685+6.30.234
Rectangle+6.20.237-0.20.963+5.50.273+2.00.695+5.00.349-0.70.899+4.60.439-2.20.68550.9%173+4.00.434
Octagon+2.10.671-4.30.375+1.50.756-2.00.672+0.90.855-4.70.347+0.60.924-6.30.234-4.00.43446.8%205
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 counted1,558
Win rate46.9%
Widest swing-3.6 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
Rectangle50.0%+3.10.410154
Single wall50.0%+3.10.403158
Open49.2%+2.40.571130
Breakable full fence49.1%+2.30.524173
Fence and open48.9%+2.00.69788
Breakable half fence47.4%+0.60.878156
Octagon45.3%-1.50.684161
Half fence44.3%-2.50.451194
Low fence44.1%-2.70.503136
Full fence43.2%-3.60.340155
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 3.91 on 9 df, p 0.917

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence43.2%155-5.90.284-1.10.836-4.20.456-0.90.878-6.80.230-5.60.396-6.00.311-6.80.233-2.10.705
Breakable full fence+5.90.28449.1%173+4.80.357+1.70.758+5.00.381-0.90.875+0.30.967-0.10.987-0.90.876+3.80.488
Half fence+1.10.836-4.80.35744.3%194-3.10.562+0.20.970-5.70.289-4.50.479-4.90.386-5.70.292-1.00.849
Breakable half fence+4.20.456-1.70.758+3.10.56247.4%156+3.30.570-2.60.649-1.40.830-1.80.762-2.60.652+2.10.709
Low fence+0.90.878-5.00.381-0.20.970-3.30.57044.1%136-5.90.314-4.70.486-5.10.403-5.90.317-1.20.833
Single wall+6.80.230+0.90.875+5.70.289+2.60.649+5.90.31450.0%158+1.10.864+0.80.897+0.01.000+4.70.405
Fence and open+5.60.396-0.30.967+4.50.479+1.40.830+4.70.486-1.10.86448.9%88-0.40.958-1.10.865+3.50.594
Open+6.00.311+0.10.987+4.90.386+1.80.762+5.10.403-0.80.897+0.40.95849.2%130-0.80.897+3.90.509
Rectangle+6.80.233+0.90.876+5.70.292+2.60.652+5.90.317-0.01.000+1.10.865+0.80.89750.0%154+4.70.408
Octagon+2.10.705-3.80.488+1.00.849-2.10.709+1.20.833-4.70.405-3.50.594-3.90.509-4.70.40845.3%161
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 counted431
Win rate54.1%
Widest swing14.7 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
Open68.8%+14.70.08332 ·
Rectangle57.9%+3.80.73219 ·
Single wall57.9%+3.80.61938 ·
Breakable full fence57.4%+3.40.59854 ·
Octagon52.3%-1.80.80244 ·
Breakable half fence52.2%-1.80.74567 ·
Half fence51.6%-2.50.77731 ·
Low fence51.1%-3.00.66247 ·
Full fence50.0%-4.10.56844 ·
Fence and open39.4%-14.70.07933 ·
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 6.85 on 9 df, p 0.653

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%44-7.40.464-1.60.891-2.20.817-1.10.919-7.90.475+10.60.355-18.80.102-7.90.565-2.30.831
Breakable full fence+7.40.46457.4%54+5.80.605+5.20.570+6.30.523-0.50.963+18.00.103-11.30.296-0.50.971+5.10.611
Half fence+1.60.891-5.80.60551.6%31-0.60.954+0.60.962-6.30.602+12.20.326-17.10.165-6.30.665-0.70.955
Breakable half fence+2.20.817-5.20.570+0.60.95452.2%67+1.20.902-5.70.576+12.80.227-16.50.120-5.70.663-0.00.997
Low fence+1.10.919-6.30.523-0.60.962-1.20.90251.1%47-6.80.530+11.70.303-17.70.118-6.80.615-1.20.908
Single wall+7.90.475+0.50.963+6.30.602+5.70.576+6.80.53057.9%38+18.50.120-10.90.349+0.01.000+5.60.610
Fence and open-10.60.355-18.00.103-12.20.326-12.80.227-11.70.303-18.50.12039.4%33-29.40.018-18.50.198-12.90.262
Open+18.80.102+11.30.296+17.10.165+16.50.120+17.70.118+10.90.349+29.40.01868.8%32+10.90.433+16.50.149
Rectangle+7.90.565+0.50.971+6.30.665+5.70.663+6.80.615-0.01.000+18.50.198-10.90.43357.9%19+5.60.681
Octagon+2.30.831-5.10.611+0.70.955+0.00.997+1.20.908-5.60.610+12.90.262-16.50.149-5.60.68152.3%44
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.