VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Lei Fei

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,289
Win rate51.8%
Widest swing5.7 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 open57.5%+5.70.42647 ·
Rectangle56.4%+4.70.326101
Full fence55.8%+4.00.313138
Octagon53.9%+2.10.594143
Open52.8%+1.10.804125
Low fence52.6%+0.80.849116
Single wall51.2%-0.50.907121
Breakable half fence50.6%-1.20.746170
Half fence50.0%-1.80.647152
Breakable full fence48.6%-3.10.496107
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 3.16 on 9 df, p 0.958

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.8%138+7.20.263+5.80.323+5.20.362+3.20.609+4.60.463-1.60.844+3.00.626-0.60.922+1.90.743
Breakable full fence-7.20.26348.6%107-1.40.824-2.00.747-4.00.552-2.60.691-8.80.312-4.20.523-7.80.258-5.20.411
Half fence-5.80.323+1.40.82450.0%152-0.60.916-2.60.675-1.20.839-7.50.372-2.80.643-6.40.315-3.90.509
Breakable half fence-5.20.362+2.00.747+0.60.91650.6%170-2.00.740-0.70.913-6.90.405-2.20.707-5.80.351-3.30.565
Low fence-3.20.609+4.00.552+2.60.675+2.00.74052.6%116+1.40.836-4.90.573-0.20.974-3.90.570-1.30.840
Single wall-4.60.463+2.60.691+1.20.839+0.70.913-1.40.83651.2%121-6.20.469-1.60.807-5.20.439-2.60.673
Fence and open+1.60.844+8.80.312+7.50.372+6.90.405+4.90.573+6.20.46957.5%47+4.70.586+1.00.908+3.60.667
Open-3.00.626+4.20.523+2.80.643+2.20.707+0.20.974+1.60.807-4.70.58652.8%125-3.60.585-1.10.864
Rectangle+0.60.922+7.80.258+6.40.315+5.80.351+3.90.570+5.20.439-1.00.908+3.60.58556.4%101+2.60.689
Octagon-1.90.743+5.20.411+3.90.509+3.30.565+1.30.840+2.60.673-3.60.667+1.10.864-2.60.68953.9%143
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 counted985
Win rate52.8%
Widest swing5.2 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
Full fence58.0%+5.20.271100
Octagon58.0%+5.20.271100
Rectangle56.5%+3.70.47785
Breakable half fence55.2%+2.40.564125
Single wall53.7%+0.90.87082
Low fence53.2%+0.40.93594
Open52.0%-0.80.87598
Fence and open51.2%-1.60.83741 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%-2.80.60280
Half fence50.0%-2.80.501126
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 3.20 on 9 df, p 0.956

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence58.0%100+8.00.284+8.00.231+2.80.674+4.80.500+4.30.557+6.80.461+6.00.399+1.50.834+0.01.000
Breakable full fence-8.00.28450.0%80+0.01.000-5.20.467-3.20.675-3.70.641-1.20.899-2.00.786-6.50.405-8.00.284
Half fence-8.00.231-0.01.00050.0%126-5.20.409-3.20.639-3.70.606-1.20.892-2.00.762-6.50.356-8.00.231
Breakable half fence-2.80.674+5.20.467+5.20.40955.2%125+2.00.768+1.50.828+4.00.657+3.20.639-1.30.856-2.80.674
Low fence-4.80.500+3.20.675+3.20.639-2.00.76853.2%94-0.50.951+2.00.833+1.10.873-3.30.660-4.80.500
Single wall-4.30.557+3.70.641+3.70.606-1.50.828+0.50.95153.7%82+2.40.798+1.60.829-2.80.715-4.30.557
Fence and open-6.80.461+1.20.899+1.20.892-4.00.657-2.00.833-2.40.79851.2%41-0.80.930-5.20.579-6.80.461
Open-6.00.399+2.00.786+2.00.762-3.20.639-1.10.873-1.60.829+0.80.93052.0%98-4.40.549-6.00.399
Rectangle-1.50.834+6.50.405+6.50.356+1.30.856+3.30.660+2.80.715+5.20.579+4.40.54956.5%85-1.50.834
Octagon-0.01.000+8.00.284+8.00.231+2.80.674+4.80.500+4.30.557+6.80.461+6.00.399+1.50.83458.0%100
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 counted304
Win rate48.4%
Widest swing51.6 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
Fence and open100.0%+51.60.0116 ·
Rectangle56.2%+7.90.51616 ·
Open55.6%+7.20.43327 ·
Full fence50.0%+1.60.82838 ·
Half fence50.0%+1.60.86126 ·
Low fence50.0%+1.60.87322 ·
Single wall46.1%-2.20.76839 ·
Breakable full fence44.4%-3.90.67027 ·
Octagon44.2%-4.20.55543 ·
Breakable half fence37.8%-10.60.12445 ·
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 10.01 on 9 df, p 0.349

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%38+5.60.659+0.01.000+12.20.263+0.01.000+3.90.736-50.00.022-5.60.659-6.20.675+5.80.601
Breakable full fence-5.60.65944.4%27-5.60.685+6.70.577-5.60.698-1.70.891-55.60.013-11.10.414-11.80.454+0.20.983
Half fence-0.01.000+5.60.68550.0%26+12.20.315+0.01.000+3.90.761-50.00.025-5.60.685-6.20.694+5.80.639
Breakable half fence-12.20.263-6.70.577-12.20.31537.8%45-12.20.341-8.40.437-62.20.004-17.80.142-18.50.199-6.40.541
Low fence-0.01.000+5.60.698-0.01.000+12.20.34150.0%22+3.90.773-50.00.026-5.60.698-6.20.703+5.80.656
Single wall-3.90.736+1.70.891-3.90.761+8.40.437-3.90.77346.1%39-53.90.014-9.40.453-10.10.496+2.00.858
Fence and open+50.00.022+55.60.013+50.00.025+62.20.004+50.00.026+53.90.014100.0%6+44.40.041+43.80.050+55.80.010
Open+5.60.659+11.10.414+5.60.685+17.80.142+5.60.698+9.40.453-44.40.04155.6%27-0.70.965+11.40.354
Rectangle+6.20.675+11.80.454+6.20.694+18.50.199+6.20.703+10.10.496-43.80.050+0.70.96556.2%16+12.10.409
Octagon-5.80.601-0.20.983-5.80.639+6.40.541-5.80.656-2.00.858-55.80.010-11.40.354-12.10.40944.2%43
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.