VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Sarah

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,680
Win rate51.6%
Widest swing5.3 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 fence56.9%+5.30.150167
Single wall53.8%+2.10.569160
Fence and open53.7%+2.00.70382
Low fence53.2%+1.60.675156
Breakable full fence52.8%+1.20.729176
Open52.4%+0.80.839145
Breakable half fence51.2%-0.40.917164
Octagon48.9%-2.70.440180
Rectangle48.5%-3.10.398165
Full fence47.4%-4.20.242173
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 5.01 on 9 df, p 0.834

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.4%173-5.40.309-9.50.080-3.80.483-5.80.293-6.30.247-6.30.350-5.00.373-1.10.842-1.50.779
Breakable full fence+5.40.30952.8%176-4.00.452+1.60.765-0.40.947-0.90.868-0.80.902+0.40.939+4.40.421+4.00.456
Half fence+9.50.080+4.00.45256.9%167+5.70.301+3.70.506+3.10.568+3.20.630+4.50.429+8.40.125+8.00.136
Breakable half fence+3.80.483-1.60.765-5.70.30151.2%164-2.00.722-2.50.648-2.40.718-1.20.834+2.70.620+2.30.666
Low fence+5.80.293+0.40.947-3.70.506+2.00.72253.2%156-0.50.923-0.50.947+0.80.891+4.70.398+4.30.430
Single wall+6.30.247+0.90.868-3.10.568+2.50.648+0.50.92353.8%160+0.10.989+1.30.815+5.30.342+4.90.371
Fence and open+6.30.350+0.80.902-3.20.630+2.40.718+0.50.947-0.10.98953.7%82+1.20.857+5.20.444+4.80.474
Open+5.00.373-0.40.939-4.50.429+1.20.834-0.80.891-1.30.815-1.20.85752.4%145+3.90.490+3.50.528
Rectangle+1.10.842-4.40.421-8.40.125-2.70.620-4.70.398-5.30.342-5.20.444-3.90.49048.5%165-0.40.940
Octagon+1.50.779-4.00.456-8.00.136-2.30.666-4.30.430-4.90.371-4.80.474-3.50.528+0.40.94048.9%180
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 counted1,317
Win rate49.7%
Widest swing9.1 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 fence58.8%+9.10.029131
Breakable full fence51.4%+1.70.673142
Fence and open50.0%+0.30.96660 ·
Single wall50.0%+0.30.948136
Breakable half fence49.6%-0.10.976127
Full fence49.3%-0.40.914146
Octagon49.0%-0.70.849151
Low fence47.8%-2.00.662111
Rectangle46.9%-2.90.496128
Open45.4%-4.40.37197
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 5.81 on 9 df, p 0.759

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.3%146-2.10.722-9.50.115-0.30.962+1.60.803-0.70.908-0.70.929+4.00.546+2.40.687+0.30.958
Breakable full fence+2.10.72251.4%142-7.40.221+1.80.768+3.70.563+1.40.814+1.40.855+6.00.358+4.50.457+2.40.681
Half fence+9.50.115+7.40.22158.8%131+9.20.139+11.00.086+8.80.150+8.80.257+13.40.045+11.90.055+9.80.101
Breakable half fence+0.30.962-1.80.768-9.20.13949.6%127+1.90.775-0.40.949-0.40.960+4.20.528+2.70.663+0.60.921
Low fence-1.60.803-3.70.563-11.00.086-1.90.77547.8%111-2.20.725-2.20.779+2.40.731+0.90.893-1.30.840
Single wall+0.70.908-1.40.814-8.80.150+0.40.949+2.20.72550.0%136+0.01.000+4.60.485+3.10.612+1.00.867
Fence and open+0.70.929-1.40.855-8.80.257+0.40.960+2.20.779-0.01.00050.0%60+4.60.571+3.10.689+1.00.896
Open-4.00.546-6.00.358-13.40.045-4.20.528-2.40.731-4.60.485-4.60.57145.4%97-1.50.822-3.60.575
Rectangle-2.40.687-4.50.457-11.90.055-2.70.663-0.90.893-3.10.612-3.10.689+1.50.82246.9%128-2.10.723
Octagon-0.30.958-2.40.681-9.80.101-0.60.921+1.30.840-1.00.867-1.00.896+3.60.575+2.10.72349.0%151
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 counted363
Win rate58.4%
Widest swing-21.4 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
Single wall75.0%+16.60.08824 ·
Low fence66.7%+8.30.22945 ·
Open66.7%+8.30.21248 ·
Fence and open63.6%+5.20.60722 ·
Breakable full fence58.8%+0.40.95834 ·
Breakable half fence56.8%-1.60.83037 ·
Rectangle54.0%-4.30.57137 ·
Half fence50.0%-8.40.28136 ·
Octagon48.3%-10.10.24929 ·
Full fence37.0%-21.40.01927 ·
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 13.22 on 9 df, p 0.153

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence37.0%27-21.80.091-13.00.306-19.70.119-29.60.014-38.00.007-26.60.064-29.60.013-17.00.178-11.20.396
Breakable full fence+21.80.09158.8%34+8.80.459+2.10.860-7.80.474-16.20.202-4.80.719-7.80.468+4.80.686+10.50.402
Half fence+13.00.306-8.80.45950.0%36-6.80.563-16.70.129-25.00.053-13.60.311-16.70.124-4.00.729+1.70.890
Breakable half fence+19.70.119-2.10.860+6.80.56356.8%37-9.90.357-18.20.147-6.90.603-9.90.350+2.70.815+8.50.493
Low fence+29.60.014+7.80.474+16.70.129+9.90.35766.7%45-8.30.474+3.00.806+0.01.000+12.60.244+18.40.116
Single wall+38.00.007+16.20.202+25.00.053+18.20.147+8.30.47475.0%24+11.40.403+8.30.469+20.90.099+26.70.048
Fence and open+26.60.064+4.80.719+13.60.311+6.90.603-3.00.806-11.40.40363.6%22-3.00.804+9.60.471+15.40.275
Open+29.60.013+7.80.468+16.70.124+9.90.350-0.01.000-8.30.469+3.00.80466.7%48+12.60.237+18.40.111
Rectangle+17.00.178-4.80.686+4.00.729-2.70.815-12.60.244-20.90.099-9.60.471-12.60.23754.0%37+5.80.641
Octagon+11.20.396-10.50.402-1.70.890-8.50.493-18.40.116-26.70.048-15.40.275-18.40.111-5.80.64148.3%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
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.