VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Shun

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,565
Win rate50.2%
Widest swing6.9 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 wall57.1%+6.90.071154
Breakable full fence54.6%+4.40.238163
Low fence54.3%+4.10.314140
Breakable half fence49.7%-0.60.886145
Fence and open49.4%-0.80.87885
Open48.7%-1.50.691154
Rectangle48.0%-2.20.567150
Full fence47.8%-2.40.485180
Half fence47.2%-3.00.419161
Octagon44.2%-6.00.104165
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 8.96 on 9 df, p 0.441

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.8%180-6.80.207+0.60.916-1.90.736-6.50.248-9.40.088-1.60.804-0.90.866-0.20.968+3.50.510
Breakable full fence+6.80.20754.6%163+7.40.183+4.90.386+0.30.956-2.50.649+5.20.437+5.90.293+6.60.243+10.40.061
Half fence-0.60.916-7.40.18347.2%161-2.50.668-7.10.220-9.90.078-2.20.742-1.50.790-0.80.888+3.00.591
Breakable half fence+1.90.736-4.90.386+2.50.66849.7%145-4.60.434-7.50.195+0.20.972+1.00.869+1.70.776+5.40.341
Low fence+6.50.248-0.30.956+7.10.220+4.60.43454.3%140-2.90.622+4.90.478+5.60.339+6.30.285+10.10.080
Single wall+9.40.088+2.50.649+9.90.078+7.50.195+2.90.62257.1%154+7.70.251+8.40.138+9.10.110+12.90.021
Fence and open+1.60.804-5.20.437+2.20.742-0.20.972-4.90.478-7.70.25149.4%85+0.70.916+1.40.835+5.20.437
Open+0.90.866-5.90.293+1.50.790-1.00.869-5.60.339-8.40.138-0.70.91648.7%154+0.70.903+4.50.425
Rectangle+0.20.968-6.60.243+0.80.888-1.70.776-6.30.285-9.10.110-1.40.835-0.70.90348.0%150+3.80.504
Octagon-3.50.510-10.40.061-3.00.591-5.40.341-10.10.080-12.90.021-5.20.437-4.50.425-3.80.50444.2%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
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 counted1,185
Win rate49.8%
Widest swing8.4 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 wall58.2%+8.40.065110
Low fence53.6%+3.80.400112
Breakable full fence52.3%+2.50.540128
Full fence50.8%+1.00.813132
Breakable half fence50.4%+0.60.885121
Fence and open49.1%-0.60.92059 ·
Open48.3%-1.50.737120
Rectangle48.1%-1.60.721108
Octagon44.4%-5.40.201124
Half fence41.9%-7.90.072117
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 8.76 on 9 df, p 0.460

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.8%132-1.60.798+8.90.161+0.30.956-2.80.661-7.40.248+1.60.838+2.40.701+2.60.688+6.40.305
Breakable full fence+1.60.79852.3%128+10.50.101+1.90.761-1.20.849-5.80.367+3.20.685+4.00.528+4.20.521+8.00.205
Half fence-8.90.161-10.50.10141.9%117-8.50.187-11.70.077-16.30.014-7.30.359-6.50.318-6.30.345-2.50.698
Breakable half fence-0.30.956-1.90.761+8.50.18750.4%121-3.20.630-7.80.237+1.30.874+2.10.747+2.30.732+6.10.342
Low fence+2.80.661+1.20.849+11.70.077+3.20.63053.6%112-4.60.489+4.40.582+5.20.425+5.40.421+9.20.157
Single wall+7.40.248+5.80.367+16.30.014+7.80.237+4.60.48958.2%110+9.00.261+9.80.135+10.00.138+13.80.035
Fence and open-1.60.838-3.20.685+7.30.359-1.30.874-4.40.582-9.00.26149.1%59+0.80.918+1.00.901+4.80.543
Open-2.40.701-4.00.528+6.50.318-2.10.747-5.20.425-9.80.135-0.80.91848.3%120+0.20.978+4.00.533
Rectangle-2.60.688-4.20.521+6.30.345-2.30.732-5.40.421-10.00.138-1.00.901-0.20.97848.1%108+3.80.563
Octagon-6.40.305-8.00.205+2.50.698-6.10.342-9.20.157-13.80.035-4.80.543-4.00.533-3.80.56344.4%124
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 counted380
Win rate51.6%
Widest swing-12.0 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
Breakable full fence62.9%+11.30.16135 ·
Half fence61.4%+9.80.16744 ·
Low fence57.1%+5.60.54028 ·
Single wall54.5%+3.00.67544 ·
Fence and open50.0%-1.60.86726 ·
Open50.0%-1.60.84734 ·
Rectangle47.6%-4.00.58642 ·
Breakable half fence45.8%-5.80.56124 ·
Octagon43.9%-7.70.29841 ·
Full fence39.6%-12.00.07548 ·
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 8.31 on 9 df, p 0.504

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence39.6%48-23.30.036-21.80.037-6.20.612-17.60.138-15.00.151-10.40.388-10.40.349-8.00.443-4.30.680
Breakable full fence+23.30.03662.9%35+1.50.892+17.00.196+5.70.645+8.30.457+12.90.315+12.90.281+15.20.181+19.00.099
Half fence+21.80.037-1.50.89261.4%44+15.50.218+4.20.722+6.80.517+11.40.353+11.40.316+13.70.201+17.50.107
Breakable half fence+6.20.612-17.00.196-15.50.21845.8%24-11.30.416-8.70.492-4.20.768-4.20.754-1.80.889+1.90.880
Low fence+17.60.138-5.70.645-4.20.722+11.30.41657.1%28+2.60.829+7.10.599+7.10.575+9.50.435+13.20.280
Single wall+15.00.151-8.30.457-6.80.517+8.70.492-2.60.82954.5%44+4.50.713+4.50.690+6.90.521+10.70.327
Fence and open+10.40.388-12.90.315-11.40.353+4.20.768-7.10.599-4.50.71350.0%26+0.01.000+2.40.849+6.10.626
Open+10.40.349-12.90.281-11.40.316+4.20.754-7.10.575-4.50.690-0.01.00050.0%34+2.40.836+6.10.598
Rectangle+8.00.443-15.20.181-13.70.201+1.80.889-9.50.435-6.90.521-2.40.849-2.40.83647.6%42+3.70.734
Octagon+4.30.680-19.00.099-17.50.107-1.90.880-13.20.280-10.70.327-6.10.626-6.10.598-3.70.73443.9%41
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.