VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Sarah

El Blaze vs Sarah in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 51.8% of 3,798 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 counted3,798
Win rate51.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.3 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
Octagon55.9%+4.10.079406
Single wall55.2%+3.40.166377
Fence and open53.7%+1.90.608177
Half fence53.4%+1.60.506382
Rectangle52.2%+0.40.873391
Full fence51.2%-0.60.804379
Breakable half fence51.0%-0.80.733369
Breakable full fence50.0%-1.80.486344
Open49.2%-2.60.255415
Low fence47.5%-4.30.087354
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 9.57 on 9 df, p 0.386

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.2%379+1.20.750-2.20.541+0.20.948+3.70.313-4.00.272-2.50.585+2.00.568-1.00.784-4.70.185
Breakable full fence-1.20.75050.0%344-3.40.360-0.90.800+2.50.502-5.20.165-3.70.427+0.80.817-2.20.556-5.90.106
Half fence+2.20.541+3.40.36053.4%382+2.50.501+5.90.107-1.80.625-0.30.953+4.20.231+1.20.732-2.50.480
Breakable half fence-0.20.948+0.90.800-2.50.50151.0%369+3.50.348-4.20.248-2.70.551+1.80.616-1.20.735-5.00.167
Low fence-3.70.313-2.50.502-5.90.107-3.50.34847.5%354-7.70.037-6.20.177-1.70.638-4.70.199-8.40.020
Single wall+4.00.272+5.20.165+1.80.625+4.20.248+7.70.03755.2%377+1.50.741+6.00.091+3.00.405-0.70.835
Fence and open+2.50.585+3.70.427+0.30.953+2.70.551+6.20.177-1.50.74153.7%177+4.50.314+1.50.740-2.20.617
Open-2.00.568-0.80.817-4.20.231-1.80.616+1.70.638-6.00.091-4.50.31449.2%415-3.00.392-6.80.053
Rectangle+1.00.784+2.20.556-1.20.732+1.20.735+4.70.199-3.00.405-1.50.740+3.00.39252.2%391-3.70.290
Octagon+4.70.185+5.90.106+2.50.480+5.00.167+8.40.020+0.70.835+2.20.617+6.80.053+3.70.29055.9%406
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 counted1,910
Win rate51.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches9.8 pts
Survive correction1
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
Octagon61.3%+9.80.002212
Full fence56.0%+4.40.193193
Single wall55.9%+4.40.197195
Fence and open53.3%+1.80.72490
Rectangle53.3%+1.80.602199
Half fence50.8%-0.70.845181
Breakable half fence49.5%-2.10.557182
Open46.0%-5.50.069237
Breakable full fence45.6%-6.00.118158
Low fence42.9%-8.60.016177
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 22.24 on 9 df, p 0.008

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.0%193+10.40.053+5.10.320+6.50.207+13.00.012+0.10.990+2.60.679+10.00.040+2.70.592-5.40.274
Breakable full fence-10.40.05345.6%158-5.30.334-3.90.475+2.60.628-10.30.054-7.80.239-0.40.934-7.70.149-15.80.003
Half fence-5.10.320+5.30.33450.8%181+1.40.793+7.90.135-5.10.325-2.50.698+4.80.327-2.40.635-10.50.037
Breakable half fence-6.50.207+3.90.475-1.40.79349.5%182+6.50.216-6.50.210-3.90.547+3.50.482-3.80.457-11.90.018
Low fence-13.00.012-2.60.628-7.90.135-6.50.21642.9%177-13.00.013-10.40.107-3.00.536-10.30.045-18.4<0.001
Single wall-0.10.990+10.30.054+5.10.325+6.50.210+13.00.01355.9%195+2.60.686+9.90.040+2.60.600-5.40.267
Fence and open-2.60.679+7.80.239+2.50.698+3.90.547+10.40.107-2.60.68653.3%90+7.30.235+0.10.992-8.00.197
Open-10.00.040+0.40.934-4.80.327-3.50.482+3.00.536-9.90.040-7.30.23546.0%237-7.30.130-15.30.001
Rectangle-2.70.592+7.70.149+2.40.635+3.80.457+10.30.045-2.60.600-0.10.992+7.30.13053.3%199-8.10.099
Octagon+5.40.274+15.80.003+10.50.037+11.90.018+18.4<0.001+5.40.267+8.00.197+15.30.001+8.10.09961.3%212
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 counted1,500
Win rate50.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.1 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
Half fence57.7%+7.10.054163
Breakable full fence52.6%+2.10.585152
Breakable half fence51.0%+0.50.903149
Single wall50.6%+0.10.977156
Octagon50.3%-0.20.950165
Fence and open50.0%-0.50.93262 ·
Rectangle49.7%-0.90.823149
Open48.4%-2.10.619126
Full fence48.4%-2.10.572155
Low fence47.3%-3.20.440129
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 4.68 on 9 df, p 0.861

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.4%155-4.20.457-9.30.097-2.60.648+1.10.853-2.20.691-1.60.830-0.00.997-1.30.824-1.90.732
Breakable full fence+4.20.45752.6%152-5.00.369+1.60.778+5.30.372+2.00.727+2.60.727+4.20.484+3.00.607+2.30.679
Half fence+9.30.097+5.00.36957.7%163+6.70.238+10.40.078+7.00.208+7.70.301+9.30.118+8.00.157+7.40.181
Breakable half fence+2.60.648-1.60.778-6.70.23851.0%149+3.70.536+0.40.949+1.00.894+2.60.668+1.40.817+0.70.901
Low fence-1.10.853-5.30.372-10.40.078-3.70.53647.3%129-3.40.573-2.70.725-1.10.857-2.40.692-3.00.608
Single wall+2.20.691-2.00.727-7.00.208-0.40.949+3.40.57350.6%156+0.60.932+2.20.710+1.00.865+0.30.952
Fence and open+1.60.830-2.60.727-7.70.301-1.00.894+2.70.725-0.60.93250.0%62+1.60.838+0.30.965-0.30.968
Open+0.00.997-4.20.484-9.30.118-2.60.668+1.10.857-2.20.710-1.60.83848.4%126-1.20.836-1.90.749
Rectangle+1.30.824-3.00.607-8.00.157-1.40.817+2.40.692-1.00.865-0.30.965+1.20.83649.7%149-0.60.910
Octagon+1.90.732-2.30.679-7.40.181-0.70.901+3.00.608-0.30.952+0.30.968+1.90.749+0.60.91050.3%165
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 counted388
Win rate58.0%
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
Single wall76.9%+18.90.04326 ·
Open65.4%+7.40.24652 ·
Low fence64.6%+6.60.32348 ·
Fence and open64.0%+6.00.52925 ·
Breakable full fence58.8%+0.80.91834 ·
Breakable half fence57.9%-0.10.99038 ·
Rectangle55.8%-2.20.75943 ·
Octagon48.3%-9.70.27129 ·
Half fence47.4%-10.60.16338 ·
Full fence35.5%-22.50.00831 ·
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 15.60 on 9 df, p 0.076

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence35.5%31-23.30.060-11.90.320-22.40.064-29.10.011-41.40.002-28.50.034-29.90.008-20.30.084-12.80.315
Breakable full fence+23.30.06058.8%34+11.40.331+0.90.936-5.80.596-18.10.141-5.20.687-6.60.538+3.00.791+10.50.402
Half fence+11.90.320-11.40.33147.4%38-10.50.358-17.20.109-29.60.018-16.60.195-18.00.087-8.40.448-0.90.941
Breakable half fence+22.40.064-0.90.936+10.50.35857.9%38-6.70.526-19.00.115-6.10.628-7.50.469+2.10.850+9.60.434
Low fence+29.10.011+5.80.596+17.20.109+6.70.52664.6%48-12.30.274+0.60.961-0.80.933+8.80.393+16.30.159
Single wall+41.40.002+18.10.141+29.60.018+19.00.115+12.30.27476.9%26+12.90.311+11.50.298+21.10.077+28.60.029
Fence and open+28.50.034+5.20.687+16.60.195+6.10.628-0.60.961-12.90.31164.0%25-1.40.905+8.20.508+15.70.246
Open+29.90.008+6.60.538+18.00.087+7.50.469+0.80.933-11.50.298+1.40.90565.4%52+9.60.341+17.10.133
Rectangle+20.30.084-3.00.791+8.40.448-2.10.850-8.80.393-21.10.077-8.20.508-9.60.34155.8%43+7.50.530
Octagon+12.80.315-10.50.402+0.90.941-9.60.434-16.30.159-28.60.029-15.70.246-17.10.133-7.50.53048.3%29
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.