VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Shun

El Blaze vs Shun in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 50.2% of 3,391 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 counted3,391
Win rate50.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.7 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
Low fence54.6%+4.30.099328
Single wall52.5%+2.20.383341
Breakable full fence52.0%+1.70.492354
Full fence51.1%+0.80.731362
Fence and open50.6%+0.30.929172
Open50.3%+0.10.986338
Rectangle49.3%-0.90.738294
Octagon48.6%-1.60.534321
Half fence47.5%-2.80.253375
Breakable half fence45.6%-4.70.075327
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 8.15 on 9 df, p 0.519

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.1%362-0.90.815+3.60.323+5.50.146-3.50.362-1.40.713+0.50.910+0.80.831+1.80.649+2.50.513
Breakable full fence+0.90.81552.0%354+4.50.223+6.40.094-2.60.497-0.50.892+1.40.764+1.70.658+2.70.500+3.40.381
Half fence-3.60.323-4.50.22347.5%375+1.90.615-7.10.060-5.00.179-3.10.499-2.80.450-1.90.634-1.10.766
Breakable half fence-5.50.146-6.40.094-1.90.61545.6%327-9.00.021-6.90.073-5.00.286-4.70.222-3.80.350-3.00.439
Low fence+3.50.362+2.60.497+7.10.060+9.00.02154.6%328+2.10.590+4.00.395+4.30.269+5.20.190+6.00.128
Single wall+1.40.713+0.50.892+5.00.179+6.90.073-2.10.59052.5%341+1.90.683+2.20.567+3.20.425+3.90.317
Fence and open-0.50.910-1.40.764+3.10.499+5.00.286-4.00.395-1.90.68350.6%172+0.30.951+1.30.793+2.00.675
Open-0.80.831-1.70.658+2.80.450+4.70.222-4.30.269-2.20.567-0.30.95150.3%338+1.00.807+1.70.663
Rectangle-1.80.649-2.70.500+1.90.634+3.80.350-5.20.190-3.20.425-1.30.793-1.00.80749.3%294+0.70.858
Octagon-2.50.513-3.40.381+1.10.766+3.00.439-6.00.128-3.90.317-2.00.675-1.70.663-0.70.85848.6%321
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 counted1,606
Win rate50.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-9.7 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
Low fence55.2%+5.00.176163
Full fence53.3%+3.10.396167
Octagon52.5%+2.30.568141
Fence and open51.9%+1.70.75881
Rectangle51.6%+1.40.741124
Breakable full fence50.6%+0.40.912170
Open49.7%-0.50.894155
Single wall48.4%-1.80.640159
Half fence48.2%-2.00.552191
Breakable half fence40.5%-9.70.012153
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 9.02 on 9 df, p 0.435

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.3%167+2.70.619+5.10.333+12.80.022-1.90.726+4.90.380+1.40.831+3.60.517+1.70.776+0.80.887
Breakable full fence-2.70.61950.6%170+2.40.646+10.10.070-4.60.398+2.20.695-1.30.851+0.90.870-1.00.862-1.90.739
Half fence-5.10.333-2.40.64648.2%191+7.70.156-7.00.186-0.30.961-3.70.578-1.50.780-3.40.550-4.30.437
Breakable half fence-12.80.022-10.10.070-7.70.15640.5%153-14.70.009-7.90.160-11.30.097-9.20.106-11.10.065-12.00.040
Low fence+1.90.726+4.60.398+7.00.186+14.70.00955.2%163+6.80.223+3.40.620+5.50.323+3.60.544+2.70.634
Single wall-4.90.380-2.20.695+0.30.961+7.90.160-6.80.22348.4%159-3.40.616-1.20.825-3.20.595-4.00.483
Fence and open-1.40.831+1.30.851+3.70.578+11.30.097-3.40.620+3.40.61651.9%81+2.20.751+0.20.973-0.60.928
Open-3.60.517-0.90.870+1.50.780+9.20.106-5.50.323+1.20.825-2.20.75149.7%155-1.90.748-2.80.630
Rectangle-1.70.776+1.00.862+3.40.550+11.10.065-3.60.544+3.20.595-0.20.973+1.90.74851.6%124-0.90.888
Octagon-0.80.887+1.90.739+4.30.437+12.00.040-2.70.634+4.00.483+0.60.928+2.80.630+0.90.88852.5%141
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 counted1,366
Win rate50.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.8 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
Single wall57.0%+6.70.102135
Low fence53.4%+3.00.464133
Open52.0%+1.70.666146
Full fence51.0%+0.70.863143
Breakable full fence51.0%+0.70.865145
Fence and open50.8%+0.40.94563 ·
Breakable half fence50.7%+0.30.934144
Rectangle48.0%-2.30.581127
Octagon46.3%-4.00.320136
Half fence43.6%-6.80.101133
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 6.71 on 9 df, p 0.667

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.0%143+0.00.998+7.40.216+0.40.952-2.30.698-6.00.317+0.30.973-1.00.864+3.00.621+4.70.430
Breakable full fence-0.00.99851.0%145+7.40.216+0.30.954-2.40.695-6.00.314+0.20.975-1.00.862+3.00.621+4.70.430
Half fence-7.40.216-7.40.21643.6%133-7.10.238-9.80.111-13.40.028-7.20.346-8.40.158-4.40.474-2.70.655
Breakable half fence-0.40.952-0.30.954+7.10.23850.7%144-2.70.654-6.30.288-0.10.990-1.40.817+2.70.662+4.40.465
Low fence+2.30.698+2.40.695+9.80.111+2.70.65453.4%133-3.70.548+2.60.735+1.30.824+5.30.388+7.10.247
Single wall+6.00.317+6.00.314+13.40.028+6.30.288+3.70.54857.0%135+6.20.411+5.00.402+9.00.145+10.70.078
Fence and open-0.30.973-0.20.975+7.20.346+0.10.990-2.60.735-6.20.41150.8%63-1.30.867+2.80.720+4.50.557
Open+1.00.864+1.00.862+8.40.158+1.40.817-1.30.824-5.00.402+1.30.86752.0%146+4.00.507+5.70.336
Rectangle-3.00.621-3.00.621+4.40.474-2.70.662-5.30.388-9.00.145-2.80.720-4.00.50748.0%127+1.70.782
Octagon-4.70.430-4.70.430+2.70.655-4.40.465-7.10.247-10.70.078-4.50.557-5.70.336-1.70.78246.3%136
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 counted419
Win rate50.1%
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
Breakable full fence61.5%+11.40.13439 ·
Low fence56.2%+6.10.47032 ·
Half fence54.9%+4.80.46651 ·
Single wall53.2%+3.10.65547 ·
Breakable half fence46.7%-3.50.69530 ·
Rectangle46.5%-3.60.61743 ·
Fence and open46.4%-3.70.68628 ·
Open46.0%-4.20.59537 ·
Full fence44.2%-5.90.36452 ·
Octagon43.2%-6.90.33144 ·
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 5.50 on 9 df, p 0.789

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.2%52-17.30.102-10.70.279-2.40.831-12.00.285-9.00.373-2.20.851-1.70.873-2.30.824+1.10.918
Breakable full fence+17.30.10261.5%39+6.60.528+14.90.218+5.30.652+8.30.436+15.10.220+15.60.173+15.00.173+18.40.095
Half fence+10.70.279-6.60.52854.9%51+8.20.474-1.40.904+1.70.865+8.50.471+8.90.407+8.40.418+11.70.255
Breakable half fence+2.40.831-14.90.218-8.20.47446.7%30-9.60.450-6.50.577+0.20.986+0.70.953+0.20.990+3.50.767
Low fence+12.00.285-5.30.652+1.40.904+9.60.45056.2%32+3.10.789+9.80.448+10.30.393+9.70.404+13.10.260
Single wall+9.00.373-8.30.436-1.70.865+6.50.577-3.10.78953.2%47+6.80.571+7.20.510+6.70.527+10.00.340
Fence and open+2.20.851-15.10.220-8.50.471-0.20.986-9.80.448-6.80.57146.4%28+0.50.969-0.10.995+3.20.787
Open+1.70.873-15.60.173-8.90.407-0.70.953-10.30.393-7.20.510-0.50.96946.0%37-0.60.960+2.80.803
Rectangle+2.30.824-15.00.173-8.40.418-0.20.990-9.70.404-6.70.527+0.10.995+0.60.96046.5%43+3.30.755
Octagon-1.10.918-18.40.095-11.70.255-3.50.767-13.10.260-10.00.340-3.20.787-2.80.803-3.30.75543.2%44
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.