VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Lion

El Blaze vs Lion in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 50.6% of 3,053 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 counted3,053
Win rate50.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.3 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 fence54.7%+4.10.113331
Rectangle54.5%+3.90.181268
Half fence52.2%+1.70.535314
Octagon51.3%+0.80.780298
Fence and open51.2%+0.70.860160
Low fence50.3%-0.20.923316
Breakable half fence49.8%-0.70.784313
Breakable full fence48.5%-2.00.481276
Single wall46.0%-4.60.095300
Open45.3%-5.30.055298
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 10.62 on 9 df, p 0.302

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.7%331+6.10.132+2.50.532+4.80.219+4.40.266+8.70.029+3.40.475+9.40.019+0.20.960+3.30.402
Breakable full fence-6.10.13248.5%276-3.70.373-1.30.755-1.80.668+2.50.540-2.70.587+3.20.436-5.90.167-2.80.504
Half fence-2.50.532+3.70.37352.2%314+2.40.550+1.90.631+6.20.123+1.00.840+6.90.087-2.20.588+0.90.826
Breakable half fence-4.80.219+1.30.755-2.40.55049.8%313-0.50.905+3.80.341-1.40.772+4.50.262-4.60.265-1.50.710
Low fence-4.40.266+1.80.668-1.90.631+0.50.90550.3%316+4.30.284-0.90.847+5.00.214-4.20.316-1.00.799
Single wall-8.70.029-2.50.540-6.20.123-3.80.341-4.30.28446.0%300-5.20.283+0.70.864-8.50.044-5.30.191
Fence and open-3.40.475+2.70.587-1.00.840+1.40.772+0.90.847+5.20.28351.2%160+6.00.224-3.20.517-0.10.985
Open-9.40.019-3.20.436-6.90.087-4.50.262-5.00.214-0.70.864-6.00.22445.3%298-9.20.029-6.00.140
Rectangle-0.20.960+5.90.167+2.20.588+4.60.265+4.20.316+8.50.044+3.20.517+9.20.02954.5%268+3.10.456
Octagon-3.30.402+2.80.504-0.90.826+1.50.710+1.00.799+5.30.191+0.10.985+6.00.140-3.10.45651.3%298
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 counted1,302
Win rate50.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.6 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
Full fence57.9%+7.00.064152
Breakable full fence56.8%+5.90.193111
Rectangle54.0%+3.20.511100
Half fence53.5%+2.60.504144
Low fence50.4%-0.50.911131
Fence and open49.2%-1.60.78965 ·
Single wall48.1%-2.80.506131
Octagon46.9%-4.00.344128
Breakable half fence44.5%-6.30.105146
Open43.2%-7.60.072125
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 11.83 on 9 df, p 0.223

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.9%152+1.10.854+4.40.444+13.40.021+7.50.206+9.80.099+8.70.240+14.70.015+3.90.542+11.00.066
Breakable full fence-1.10.85456.8%111+3.30.601+12.20.052+6.40.322+8.70.179+7.50.334+13.60.038+2.80.687+9.90.127
Half fence-4.40.444-3.30.60153.5%144+8.90.127+3.10.608+5.40.373+4.20.570+10.30.093-0.50.935+6.60.277
Breakable half fence-13.40.021-12.20.052-8.90.12744.5%146-5.90.329-3.60.552-4.70.526+1.30.827-9.50.144-2.40.696
Low fence-7.50.206-6.40.322-3.10.608+5.90.32950.4%131+2.30.711+1.10.879+7.20.250-3.60.585+3.50.572
Single wall-9.80.099-8.70.179-5.40.373+3.60.552-2.30.71148.1%131-1.10.881+4.90.432-5.90.373+1.20.845
Fence and open-8.70.240-7.50.334-4.20.570+4.70.526-1.10.879+1.10.88149.2%65+6.00.428-4.80.549+2.40.757
Open-14.70.015-13.60.038-10.30.093-1.30.827-7.20.250-4.90.432-6.00.42843.2%125-10.80.107-3.70.557
Rectangle-3.90.542-2.80.687+0.50.935+9.50.144+3.60.585+5.90.373+4.80.549+10.80.10754.0%100+7.10.286
Octagon-11.00.066-9.90.127-6.60.277+2.40.696-3.50.572-1.20.845-2.40.757+3.70.557-7.10.28646.9%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 counted1,221
Win rate50.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.9 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
Octagon56.9%+6.30.165109
Breakable half fence55.6%+5.10.249115
Half fence55.1%+4.50.298118
Rectangle54.2%+3.60.402120
Full fence52.2%+1.60.711115
Fence and open50.0%-0.50.92966 ·
Single wall48.8%-1.70.683125
Low fence46.8%-3.70.379126
Breakable full fence44.2%-6.40.142120
Open42.6%-7.90.058129
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 10.71 on 9 df, p 0.296

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.2%115+8.00.219-2.90.656-3.50.597+5.30.407+3.40.601+2.20.778+9.50.136-2.00.760-4.70.480
Breakable full fence-8.00.21944.2%120-10.90.092-11.50.078-2.70.676-4.60.467-5.80.445+1.50.808-10.00.121-12.70.055
Half fence+2.90.656+10.90.09255.1%118-0.60.931+8.20.197+6.30.327+5.10.507+12.40.051+0.90.887-1.80.785
Breakable half fence+3.50.597+11.50.078+0.60.93155.6%115+8.80.171+6.80.288+5.70.463+13.00.042+1.50.819-1.20.853
Low fence-5.30.407+2.70.676-8.20.197-8.80.17146.8%126-2.00.754-3.20.676+4.20.501-7.30.250-10.10.124
Single wall-3.40.601+4.60.467-6.30.327-6.80.288+2.00.75448.8%125-1.20.875+6.20.324-5.40.401-8.10.217
Fence and open-2.20.778+5.80.445-5.10.507-5.70.463+3.20.676+1.20.87550.0%66+7.40.328-4.20.586-6.90.376
Open-9.50.136-1.50.808-12.40.051-13.00.042-4.20.501-6.20.324-7.40.32842.6%129-11.50.069-14.20.029
Rectangle+2.00.760+10.00.121-0.90.887-1.50.819+7.30.250+5.40.401+4.20.586+11.50.06954.2%120-2.70.680
Octagon+4.70.480+12.70.055+1.80.785+1.20.853+10.10.124+8.10.217+6.90.376+14.20.029+2.70.68056.9%109
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 counted530
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
Open59.1%+9.10.20844 ·
Fence and open58.6%+8.60.34029 ·
Low fence57.6%+7.60.21459 ·
Rectangle56.2%+6.20.36448 ·
Breakable half fence51.9%+1.90.77052 ·
Full fence51.6%+1.60.79064 ·
Octagon50.8%+0.80.89261 ·
Half fence42.3%-7.70.24352 ·
Breakable full fence40.0%-10.00.16145 ·
Single wall31.8%-18.20.01244 ·
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 13.44 on 9 df, p 0.144

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.6%64+11.60.234+9.20.321-0.40.969-6.10.500+19.70.042-7.10.527-7.50.440-4.70.623+0.70.934
Breakable full fence-11.60.23440.0%45-2.30.818-11.90.240-17.60.075+8.20.421-18.60.117-19.10.072-16.20.117-10.80.269
Half fence-9.20.321+2.30.81842.3%52-9.60.326-15.30.107+10.50.290-16.30.159-16.80.101-13.90.164-8.50.366
Breakable half fence+0.40.969+11.90.240+9.60.32651.9%52-5.70.547+20.10.047-6.70.562-7.20.482-4.30.664+1.10.907
Low fence+6.10.500+17.60.075+15.30.107+5.70.54757.6%59+25.80.009-1.00.929-1.50.882+1.40.886+6.80.454
Single wall-19.70.042-8.20.421-10.50.290-20.10.047-25.80.00931.8%44-26.80.023-27.30.010-24.40.019-19.00.052
Fence and open+7.10.527+18.60.117+16.30.159+6.70.562+1.00.929+26.80.02358.6%29-0.50.968+2.40.839+7.80.488
Open+7.50.440+19.10.072+16.80.101+7.20.482+1.50.882+27.30.010+0.50.96859.1%44+2.80.783+8.30.401
Rectangle+4.70.623+16.20.117+13.90.164+4.30.664-1.40.886+24.40.019-2.40.839-2.80.78356.2%48+5.40.573
Octagon-0.70.934+10.80.269+8.50.366-1.10.907-6.80.454+19.00.052-7.80.488-8.30.401-5.40.57350.8%61
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.