VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Lei Fei

El Blaze vs Lei Fei in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 52.1% of 2,126 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 counted2,126
Win rate52.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.7 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
Rectangle56.2%+4.20.185224
Full fence55.2%+3.20.320219
Open55.1%+3.00.363207
Single wall54.3%+2.30.534173
Fence and open53.7%+1.60.727108
Half fence51.5%-0.60.839241
Breakable full fence50.8%-1.20.723183
Breakable half fence50.4%-1.60.589238
Low fence49.0%-3.10.363196
Octagon47.4%-4.70.133230
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 6.83 on 9 df, p 0.655

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.2%219+4.40.375+3.80.415+4.80.301+6.30.202+0.90.856+1.60.791+0.20.970-1.00.832+7.90.096
Breakable full fence-4.40.37550.8%183-0.60.897+0.40.935+1.80.720-3.50.507-2.90.634-4.20.401-5.40.274+3.40.489
Half fence-3.80.415+0.60.89751.5%241+1.00.821+2.50.607-2.90.562-2.20.697-3.60.444-4.80.300+4.10.378
Breakable half fence-4.80.301-0.40.935-1.00.82150.4%238+1.40.765-3.90.433-3.30.571-4.70.327-5.80.209+3.00.512
Low fence-6.30.202-1.80.720-2.50.607-1.40.76549.0%196-5.40.304-4.70.430-6.10.221-7.30.136+1.60.744
Single wall-0.90.856+3.50.507+2.90.562+3.90.433+5.40.30454.3%173+0.60.918-0.70.886-1.90.704+7.00.168
Fence and open-1.60.791+2.90.634+2.20.697+3.30.571+4.70.430-0.60.91853.7%108-1.40.817-2.50.662+6.30.279
Open-0.20.970+4.20.401+3.60.444+4.70.327+6.10.221+0.70.886+1.40.81755.1%207-1.20.806+7.70.109
Rectangle+1.00.832+5.40.274+4.80.300+5.80.209+7.30.136+1.90.704+2.50.662+1.20.80656.2%224+8.90.059
Octagon-7.90.096-3.40.489-4.10.378-3.00.512-1.60.744-7.00.168-6.30.279-7.70.109-8.90.05947.4%230
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 counted636
Win rate52.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.8 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 wall63.0%+10.80.12646 ·
Breakable half fence57.5%+5.20.45447 ·
Open57.4%+5.20.39561 ·
Rectangle57.0%+4.80.31793
Fence and open56.8%+4.60.52544 ·
Half fence56.3%+4.10.45971 ·
Full fence53.3%+1.10.85460 ·
Breakable full fence46.3%-5.90.36454 ·
Low fence36.2%-16.00.01158 ·
Octagon34.2%-17.90.00173 ·
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 21.04 on 9 df, p 0.013

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.3%60+7.00.453-3.00.731-4.10.671+17.10.062-9.70.316-3.50.724-4.00.655-3.70.657+19.10.027
Breakable full fence-7.00.45346.3%54-10.00.266-11.20.263+10.10.278-16.70.094-10.50.300-11.10.235-10.70.210+12.10.169
Half fence+3.00.731+10.00.26656.3%71-1.10.905+20.10.023-6.70.471-0.50.960-1.00.904-0.70.934+22.10.008
Breakable half fence+4.10.671+11.20.263+1.10.90557.5%47+21.20.030-5.60.581+0.60.952+0.10.994+0.50.959+23.20.012
Low fence-17.10.062-10.10.278-20.10.023-21.20.03036.2%58-26.80.007-20.60.038-21.20.021-20.80.013+2.00.815
Single wall+9.70.316+16.70.094+6.70.471+5.60.581+26.80.00763.0%46+6.20.547+5.70.554+6.00.495+28.80.002
Fence and open+3.50.724+10.50.300+0.50.960-0.60.952+20.60.038-6.20.54756.8%44-0.60.954-0.20.985+22.60.017
Open+4.00.655+11.10.235+1.00.904-0.10.994+21.20.021-5.70.554+0.60.95457.4%61+0.40.962+23.10.007
Rectangle+3.70.657+10.70.210+0.70.934-0.50.959+20.80.013-6.00.495+0.20.985-0.40.96257.0%93+22.70.004
Octagon-19.10.027-12.10.169-22.10.008-23.20.012-2.00.815-28.80.002-22.60.017-23.10.007-22.70.00434.2%73
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 counted1,146
Win rate52.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.0 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
Full fence57.6%+5.00.250118
Octagon57.1%+4.50.313112
Rectangle55.6%+2.90.521108
Breakable full fence55.0%+2.40.618100
Single wall52.9%+0.20.96087
Open52.7%+0.10.989112
Breakable half fence52.1%-0.50.891144
Low fence51.9%-0.80.867108
Half fence50.4%-2.30.569139
Fence and open47.3%-5.30.41655 ·
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 3.36 on 9 df, p 0.948

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.6%118+2.60.697+7.30.244+5.50.370+5.80.383+4.80.498+10.40.203+5.00.451+2.10.754+0.50.941
Breakable full fence-2.60.69755.0%100+4.60.479+2.90.653+3.10.649+2.10.771+7.70.357+2.30.735-0.60.936-2.10.754
Half fence-7.30.244-4.60.47950.4%139-1.70.772-1.50.816-2.50.713+3.10.698-2.30.715-5.20.417-6.80.284
Breakable half fence-5.50.370-2.90.653+1.70.77252.1%144+0.20.971-0.80.907+4.80.544-0.60.925-3.50.584-5.10.420
Low fence-5.80.383-3.10.649+1.50.816-0.20.97151.9%108-1.00.887+4.60.580-0.80.902-3.70.585-5.30.431
Single wall-4.80.498-2.10.771+2.50.713+0.80.907+1.00.88752.9%87+5.60.515+0.20.978-2.70.709-4.30.548
Fence and open-10.40.203-7.70.357-3.10.698-4.80.544-4.60.580-5.60.51547.3%55-5.40.511-8.30.317-9.90.229
Open-5.00.451-2.30.735+2.30.715+0.60.925+0.80.902-0.20.978+5.40.51152.7%112-2.90.669-4.50.502
Rectangle-2.10.754+0.60.936+5.20.417+3.50.584+3.70.585+2.70.709+8.30.317+2.90.66955.6%108-1.60.812
Octagon-0.50.941+2.10.754+6.80.284+5.10.420+5.30.431+4.30.548+9.90.229+4.50.502+1.60.81257.1%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: 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 counted344
Win rate50.0%
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 open77.8%+27.80.0919 ·
Low fence63.3%+13.30.12630 ·
Open58.8%+8.80.27834 ·
Rectangle56.5%+6.50.51723 ·
Full fence51.2%+1.20.86841 ·
Single wall47.5%-2.50.73740 ·
Half fence45.2%-4.80.57231 ·
Breakable full fence44.8%-5.20.56029 ·
Octagon44.4%-5.60.42445 ·
Breakable half fence38.3%-11.70.08447 ·
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 10.21 on 9 df, p 0.333

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.2%41+6.40.598+6.10.611+12.90.224-12.10.309+3.70.738-26.60.146-7.60.510-5.30.683+6.80.530
Breakable full fence-6.40.59844.8%29-0.30.979+6.50.574-18.50.154-2.70.826-33.00.084-14.00.268-11.70.402+0.40.974
Half fence-6.10.611+0.30.97945.2%31+6.90.546-18.20.154-2.30.845-32.60.085-13.70.271-11.40.409+0.70.951
Breakable half fence-12.90.224-6.50.574-6.90.54638.3%47-25.00.032-9.20.387-39.50.029-20.50.068-18.20.149-6.10.549
Low fence+12.10.309+18.50.154+18.20.154+25.00.03263.3%30+15.80.188-14.40.420+4.50.712+6.80.615+18.90.109
Single wall-3.70.738+2.70.826+2.30.845+9.20.387-15.80.18847.5%40-30.30.100-11.30.331-9.00.490+3.10.778
Fence and open+26.60.146+33.00.084+32.60.085+39.50.029+14.40.420+30.30.10077.8%9+19.00.296+21.30.264+33.30.068
Open+7.60.510+14.00.268+13.70.271+20.50.068-4.50.712+11.30.331-19.00.29658.8%34+2.30.863+14.40.206
Rectangle+5.30.683+11.70.402+11.40.409+18.20.149-6.80.615+9.00.490-21.30.264-2.30.86356.5%23+12.10.346
Octagon-6.80.530-0.40.974-0.70.951+6.10.549-18.90.109-3.10.778-33.30.068-14.40.206-12.10.34644.4%45
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.