VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Lion

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,520
Win rate50.1%
Widest swing-5.6 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
Rectangle54.5%+4.50.260143
Breakable half fence53.6%+3.60.354151
Half fence52.9%+2.80.456155
Fence and open52.4%+2.40.65982
Octagon52.0%+1.90.618150
Full fence52.0%+1.90.620152
Low fence49.1%-1.00.788159
Open45.6%-4.50.252147
Breakable full fence45.0%-5.10.208140
Single wall44.4%-5.60.156144
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 7.56 on 9 df, p 0.579

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.0%152+7.00.234-0.90.870-1.70.771+2.90.607+7.50.195-0.50.946+6.40.269-2.60.658-0.00.996
Breakable full fence-7.00.23445.0%140-7.90.175-8.60.141-4.10.483+0.60.925-7.40.284-0.60.922-9.60.108-7.00.233
Half fence+0.90.870+7.90.17552.9%155-0.70.897+3.80.495+8.50.144+0.50.946+7.30.203-1.60.776+0.90.875
Breakable half fence+1.70.771+8.60.141+0.70.89753.6%151+4.60.419+9.20.114+1.20.860+8.10.164-0.90.877+1.60.775
Low fence-2.90.607+4.10.483-3.80.495-4.60.41949.1%159+4.60.422-3.40.619+3.50.543-5.50.341-2.90.605
Single wall-7.50.195-0.60.925-8.50.144-9.20.114-4.60.42244.4%144-8.00.247-1.10.846-10.10.087-7.60.195
Fence and open+0.50.946+7.40.284-0.50.946-1.20.860+3.40.619+8.00.24752.4%82+6.90.319-2.10.760+0.40.949
Open-6.40.269+0.60.922-7.30.203-8.10.164-3.50.543+1.10.846-6.90.31945.6%147-9.00.127-6.40.268
Rectangle+2.60.658+9.60.108+1.60.776+0.90.877+5.50.341+10.10.087+2.10.760+9.00.12754.5%143+2.50.662
Octagon+0.00.996+7.00.233-0.90.875-1.60.775+2.90.605+7.60.195-0.40.949+6.40.268-2.50.66252.0%150
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 counted1,059
Win rate50.0%
Widest swing-8.4 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
Half fence57.5%+7.60.099106
Octagon54.2%+4.20.38796
Rectangle53.6%+3.70.45097
Breakable half fence53.3%+3.40.465105
Full fence51.0%+1.10.82498
Fence and open48.3%-1.70.79358 ·
Single wall47.6%-2.30.614105
Breakable full fence46.1%-3.80.415104
Low fence45.4%-4.60.315108
Open41.6%-8.40.060113
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 9.12 on 9 df, p 0.426

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.0%98+4.90.489-6.50.350-2.30.742+5.70.418+3.40.628+2.70.740+9.40.171-2.60.718-3.10.661
Breakable full fence-4.90.48946.1%104-11.40.098-7.20.299+0.80.909-1.50.832-2.10.795+4.60.499-7.50.291-8.00.258
Half fence+6.50.350+11.40.09857.5%106+4.20.538+12.20.075+9.90.149+9.30.255+16.00.018+3.90.573+3.40.629
Breakable half fence+2.30.742+7.20.299-4.20.53853.3%105+8.00.245+5.70.408+5.00.536+11.70.083-0.30.969-0.80.906
Low fence-5.70.418-0.80.909-12.20.075-8.00.24545.4%108-2.20.742-2.90.720+3.80.571-8.20.239-8.80.210
Single wall-3.40.628+1.50.832-9.90.149-5.70.408+2.20.74247.6%105-0.70.936+6.00.371-6.00.395-6.50.354
Fence and open-2.70.740+2.10.795-9.30.255-5.00.536+2.90.720+0.70.93648.3%58+6.70.404-5.30.520-5.90.478
Open-9.40.171-4.60.499-16.00.018-11.70.083-3.80.571-6.00.371-6.70.40441.6%113-12.00.082-12.60.070
Rectangle+2.60.718+7.50.291-3.90.573+0.30.969+8.20.239+6.00.395+5.30.520+12.00.08253.6%97-0.60.938
Octagon+3.10.661+8.00.258-3.40.629+0.80.906+8.80.210+6.50.354+5.90.478+12.60.070+0.60.93854.2%96
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 counted461
Win rate50.3%
Widest swing-14.4 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 open62.5%+12.20.22024 ·
Open58.8%+8.50.30334 ·
Low fence56.9%+6.50.32251 ·
Rectangle56.5%+6.20.37646 ·
Breakable half fence54.4%+4.00.56546 ·
Full fence53.7%+3.40.59754 ·
Octagon48.1%-2.20.73354 ·
Half fence42.9%-7.50.26949 ·
Breakable full fence41.7%-8.70.27936 ·
Single wall35.9%-14.40.06039 ·
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 fence53.7%54+12.00.263+10.80.271-0.70.949-3.20.745+17.80.089-8.80.470-5.10.638-2.80.778+5.50.564
Breakable full fence-12.00.26341.7%36-1.20.913-12.70.254-15.20.163+5.80.608-20.80.114-17.10.151-14.80.182-6.50.545
Half fence-10.80.271+1.20.91342.9%49-11.50.263-14.00.161+7.00.508-19.60.115-16.00.152-13.70.183-5.30.590
Breakable half fence+0.70.949+12.70.254+11.50.26354.4%46-2.50.803+18.40.089-8.20.513-4.50.690-2.20.834+6.20.537
Low fence+3.20.745+15.20.163+14.00.161+2.50.80356.9%51+21.00.048-5.60.644-2.00.858+0.30.973+8.70.372
Single wall-17.80.089-5.80.608-7.00.508-18.40.089-21.00.04835.9%39-26.60.040-22.90.050-20.60.058-12.20.239
Fence and open+8.80.470+20.80.114+19.60.115+8.20.513+5.60.644+26.60.04062.5%24+3.70.778+6.00.630+14.30.241
Open+5.10.638+17.10.151+16.00.152+4.50.690+2.00.858+22.90.050-3.70.77858.8%34+2.30.837+10.70.329
Rectangle+2.80.778+14.80.182+13.70.183+2.20.834-0.30.973+20.60.058-6.00.630-2.30.83756.5%46+8.40.404
Octagon-5.50.564+6.50.545+5.30.590-6.20.537-8.70.372+12.20.239-14.30.241-10.70.329-8.40.40448.1%54
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.