VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Taka

El Blaze vs Taka in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 48.8% of 1,018 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 9 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,018
Win rate48.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-11.0 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
Breakable full fence57.7%+8.80.048111
Open55.0%+6.20.169109
Octagon54.0%+5.20.244113
Full fence51.7%+2.90.506116
Rectangle48.8%-0.10.98980
Fence and open46.7%-2.10.76745 ·
Single wall45.8%-3.00.486120
Low fence44.4%-4.40.41181
Half fence40.0%-8.80.08090
Breakable half fence37.9%-11.00.019103
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 15.63 on 9 df, p 0.075

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.7%116-5.90.369+11.70.094+13.90.040+7.30.315+5.90.365+5.00.565-3.30.618+3.00.682-2.30.732
Breakable full fence+5.90.36957.7%111+17.70.013+19.80.004+13.20.070+11.80.072+11.00.212+2.60.696+8.90.223+3.70.580
Half fence-11.70.094-17.70.01340.0%90+2.10.761-4.40.557-5.80.399-6.70.460-15.10.035-8.80.251-14.00.048
Breakable half fence-13.90.040-19.80.004-2.10.76137.9%103-6.60.367-8.00.230-8.80.316-17.20.012-10.90.140-16.10.018
Low fence-7.30.315-13.20.070+4.40.557+6.60.36744.4%81-1.40.846-2.20.810-10.60.148-4.30.584-9.50.190
Single wall-5.90.365-11.80.072+5.80.399+8.00.230+1.40.84645.8%120-0.80.924-9.20.164-2.90.686-8.20.214
Fence and open-5.00.565-11.00.212+6.70.460+8.80.316+2.20.810+0.80.92446.7%45-8.40.344-2.10.823-7.30.406
Open+3.30.618-2.60.696+15.10.035+17.20.012+10.60.148+9.20.164+8.40.34455.0%109+6.30.392+1.10.874
Rectangle-3.00.682-8.90.223+8.80.251+10.90.140+4.30.584+2.90.686+2.10.823-6.30.39248.8%80-5.20.474
Octagon+2.30.732-3.70.580+14.00.048+16.10.018+9.50.190+8.20.214+7.30.406-1.10.874+5.20.47454.0%113
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 counted411
Win rate51.1%
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
Fence and open61.1%+10.00.38518 ·
Breakable full fence60.0%+8.90.15655 ·
Octagon56.9%+5.80.37951 ·
Full fence54.8%+3.70.61642 ·
Open53.1%+2.00.81132 ·
Breakable half fence52.6%+1.50.84238 ·
Low fence50.0%-1.10.89136 ·
Rectangle43.3%-7.80.37730 ·
Half fence40.5%-10.60.14642 ·
Single wall37.5%-13.60.04548 ·
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: 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 9.63 on 9 df, p 0.381

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.8%42-5.20.605+14.30.190+2.10.849+4.80.675+17.30.101-6.30.649+1.60.889+11.40.339-2.10.839
Breakable full fence+5.20.60560.0%55+19.50.057+7.40.480+10.00.347+22.50.023-1.10.933+6.90.532+16.70.141+3.10.743
Half fence-14.30.190-19.50.05740.5%42-12.20.276-9.50.399+3.00.773-20.60.142-12.60.279-2.90.808-16.40.116
Breakable half fence-2.10.849-7.40.480+12.20.27652.6%38+2.60.821+15.10.161-8.50.551-0.50.967+9.30.446-4.20.691
Low fence-4.80.675-10.00.347+9.50.399-2.60.82150.0%36+12.50.252-11.10.440-3.10.797+6.70.589-6.90.527
Single wall-17.30.101-22.50.023-3.00.773-15.10.161-12.50.25237.5%48-23.60.085-15.60.168-5.80.609-19.40.054
Fence and open+6.30.649+1.10.933+20.60.142+8.50.551+11.10.440+23.60.08561.1%18+8.00.585+17.80.233+4.20.754
Open-1.60.889-6.90.532+12.60.279+0.50.967+3.10.797+15.60.168-8.00.58553.1%32+9.80.441-3.70.739
Rectangle-11.40.339-16.70.141+2.90.808-9.30.446-6.70.589+5.80.609-17.80.233-9.80.44143.3%30-13.50.239
Octagon+2.10.839-3.10.743+16.40.116+4.20.691+6.90.527+19.40.054-4.20.754+3.70.739+13.50.23956.9%51
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 counted506
Win rate49.4%
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
Rectangle58.5%+9.10.22341 ·
Octagon58.3%+8.90.19448 ·
Full fence57.4%+8.00.18461 ·
Breakable full fence55.8%+6.40.38043 ·
Open55.6%+6.20.29763 ·
Single wall51.5%+2.10.71366 ·
Half fence42.5%-6.90.36340 ·
Fence and open40.0%-9.40.33525 ·
Low fence37.8%-11.60.14437 ·
Breakable half fence28.9%-20.60.00252 ·
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: 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 18.64 on 9 df, p 0.028

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.4%61+1.60.874+14.90.143+28.50.002+19.50.061+5.90.508+17.40.143+1.80.838-1.20.907-0.90.920
Breakable full fence-1.60.87455.8%43+13.30.225+27.00.008+18.00.108+4.30.660+15.80.209+0.20.979-2.70.801-2.50.808
Half fence-14.90.143-13.30.22542.5%40+13.70.173+4.70.677-9.00.368+2.50.842-13.10.196-16.00.149-15.80.139
Breakable half fence-28.50.002-27.00.008-13.70.17328.9%52-9.00.372-22.70.013-11.20.328-26.70.004-29.70.004-29.50.003
Low fence-19.50.061-18.00.108-4.70.677+9.00.37237.8%37-13.70.182-2.20.864-17.70.087-20.70.068-20.50.061
Single wall-5.90.508-4.30.660+9.00.368+22.70.013+13.70.18251.5%66+11.50.326-4.00.646-7.00.479-6.80.471
Fence and open-17.40.143-15.80.209-2.50.842+11.20.328+2.20.864-11.50.32640.0%25-15.60.188-18.50.144-18.30.137
Open-1.80.838-0.20.979+13.10.196+26.70.004+17.70.087+4.00.646+15.60.18855.6%63-3.00.764-2.80.770
Rectangle+1.20.907+2.70.801+16.00.149+29.70.004+20.70.068+7.00.479+18.50.144+3.00.76458.5%41+0.20.985
Octagon+0.90.920+2.50.808+15.80.139+29.50.003+20.50.061+6.80.471+18.30.137+2.80.770-0.20.98558.3%48
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 counted101
Win rate36.6%
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
Open57.1%+20.50.08614 ·
Breakable full fence53.9%+17.20.16813 ·
Low fence50.0%+13.40.4148 ·
Single wall50.0%+13.40.4846 ·
Breakable half fence30.8%-5.90.63813 ·
Octagon28.6%-8.10.50014 ·
Half fence25.0%-11.60.4778 ·
Rectangle22.2%-14.40.3479 ·
Full fence15.4%-21.20.08813 ·
Fence and open0.0%-36.60.2772 ·
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 10.88 on 9 df, p 0.284

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence15.4%13-38.50.039-9.60.586-15.40.352-34.60.088-34.60.111+15.40.551-41.80.025-6.80.683-13.20.410
Breakable full fence+38.50.03953.9%13+28.90.195+23.10.234+3.90.864+3.90.876+53.90.155-3.30.863+31.60.138+25.30.182
Half fence+9.60.586-28.90.19525.0%8-5.80.776-25.00.302-25.00.334+25.00.429-32.10.145+2.80.893-3.60.856
Breakable half fence+15.40.352-23.10.234+5.80.77630.8%13-19.20.378-19.20.419+30.80.360-26.40.168+8.60.658+2.20.901
Low fence+34.60.088-3.90.864+25.00.302+19.20.37850.0%8+0.01.000+50.00.197-7.10.746+27.80.232+21.40.315
Single wall+34.60.111-3.90.876+25.00.334+19.20.419-0.01.00050.0%6+50.00.206-7.10.769+27.80.264+21.40.357
Fence and open-15.40.551-53.90.155-25.00.429-30.80.360-50.00.197-50.00.2060.0%2-57.10.131-22.20.461-28.60.383
Open+41.80.025+3.30.863+32.10.145+26.40.168+7.10.746+7.10.769+57.10.13157.1%14+34.90.099+28.60.127
Rectangle+6.80.683-31.60.138-2.80.893-8.60.658-27.80.232-27.80.264+22.20.461-34.90.09922.2%9-6.30.735
Octagon+13.20.410-25.30.182+3.60.856-2.20.901-21.40.315-21.40.357+28.60.383-28.60.127+6.30.73528.6%14
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.