VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Vanessa

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,006
Win rate54.8%
Widest swing9.6 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
Fence and open64.4%+9.60.12559 ·
Breakable full fence58.5%+3.80.47582
Low fence57.0%+2.20.623107
Rectangle56.4%+1.70.723101
Open56.3%+1.60.78371 ·
Breakable half fence54.9%+0.10.983113
Single wall53.2%-1.60.74794
Octagon53.1%-1.60.716111
Half fence52.6%-2.20.615116
Full fence51.5%-3.20.49399
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 3.84 on 9 df, p 0.922

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.5%99-7.00.345-1.10.875-3.40.625-5.50.429-1.70.816-12.90.114-4.80.534-4.90.485-1.60.812
Breakable full fence+7.00.34558.5%82+6.00.407+3.70.610+1.50.833+5.30.476-5.90.481+2.20.784+2.10.775+5.40.457
Half fence+1.10.875-6.00.40752.6%116-2.30.729-4.40.507-0.60.930-11.80.136-3.80.617-3.90.570-0.60.932
Breakable half fence+3.40.625-3.70.610+2.30.72954.9%113-2.10.749+1.70.810-9.50.229-1.50.845-1.60.818+1.70.797
Low fence+5.50.429-1.50.833+4.40.507+2.10.74957.0%107+3.80.587-7.40.352+0.70.929+0.60.933+3.90.567
Single wall+1.70.816-5.30.476+0.60.930-1.70.810-3.80.58753.2%94-11.20.172-3.10.688-3.20.649+0.00.996
Fence and open+12.90.114+5.90.481+11.80.136+9.50.229+7.40.352+11.20.17264.4%59+8.10.350+8.00.322+11.30.158
Open+4.80.534-2.20.784+3.80.617+1.50.845-0.70.929+3.10.688-8.10.35056.3%71-0.10.990+3.20.674
Rectangle+4.90.485-2.10.775+3.90.570+1.60.818-0.60.933+3.20.649-8.00.322+0.10.99056.4%101+3.30.632
Octagon+1.60.812-5.40.457+0.60.932-1.70.797-3.90.567-0.00.996-11.30.158-3.20.674-3.30.63253.1%111
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 counted771
Win rate51.9%
Widest swing18.9 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
Fence and open70.8%+18.90.00748 ·
Breakable full fence58.2%+6.30.27867 ·
Low fence56.4%+4.50.39878 ·
Rectangle52.7%+0.80.88274 ·
Single wall52.1%+0.20.96771 ·
Breakable half fence51.1%-0.70.88288
Octagon50.0%-1.90.71186
Full fence49.4%-2.50.62985
Open48.1%-3.80.57052 ·
Half fence43.5%-8.30.10285
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 11.58 on 9 df, p 0.238

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.4%85-8.80.280+5.90.442-1.70.821-7.00.371-2.70.737-21.40.017+1.30.879-3.30.679-0.60.939
Breakable full fence+8.80.28058.2%67+14.70.072+7.10.381+1.80.827+6.10.472-12.60.166+10.10.272+5.50.511+8.20.312
Half fence-5.90.442-14.70.07243.5%85-7.60.316-12.90.100-8.60.285-27.30.002-4.50.604-9.20.248-6.50.397
Breakable half fence+1.70.821-7.10.381+7.60.31651.1%88-5.30.496-1.00.903-19.70.026+3.10.726-1.60.842+1.10.881
Low fence+7.00.371-1.80.827+12.90.100+5.30.49656.4%78+4.30.599-14.40.105+8.30.351+3.70.646+6.40.411
Single wall+2.70.737-6.10.472+8.60.285+1.00.903-4.30.59952.1%71-18.70.041+4.00.658-0.60.943+2.10.792
Fence and open+21.40.017+12.60.166+27.30.002+19.70.026+14.40.105+18.70.04170.8%48+22.80.021+18.10.046+20.80.019
Open-1.30.879-10.10.272+4.50.604-3.10.726-8.30.351-4.00.658-22.80.02148.1%52-4.60.609-1.90.827
Rectangle+3.30.679-5.50.511+9.20.248+1.60.842-3.70.646+0.60.943-18.10.046+4.60.60952.7%74+2.70.733
Octagon+0.60.939-8.20.312+6.50.397-1.10.881-6.40.411-2.10.792-20.80.019+1.90.827-2.70.73350.0%86
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 counted235
Win rate64.3%
Widest swing-27.9 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
Open79.0%+14.70.16319 ·
Half fence77.4%+13.20.10131 ·
Breakable half fence68.0%+3.70.67925 ·
Rectangle66.7%+2.40.78127 ·
Full fence64.3%+0.00.99814 ·
Octagon64.0%-0.30.97825 ·
Breakable full fence60.0%-4.30.72215 ·
Low fence58.6%-5.60.49929 ·
Single wall56.5%-7.70.41523 ·
Fence and open36.4%-27.90.04811 ·
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 9.23 on 9 df, p 0.417

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence64.3%14+4.30.812-13.10.356-3.70.813+5.70.722+7.80.641+27.90.165-14.70.350-2.40.879+0.30.986
Breakable full fence-4.30.81260.0%15-17.40.219-8.00.608+1.40.930+3.50.832+23.60.234-18.90.229-6.70.666-4.00.800
Half fence+13.10.356+17.40.21977.4%31+9.40.429+18.80.118+20.90.102+41.10.013-1.50.899+10.80.361+13.40.269
Breakable half fence+3.70.813+8.00.608-9.40.42968.0%25+9.40.477+11.50.412+31.60.076-10.90.419+1.30.918+4.00.765
Low fence-5.70.722-1.40.930-18.80.118-9.40.47758.6%29+2.10.879+22.30.208-20.30.144-8.10.534-5.40.686
Single wall-7.80.641-3.50.832-20.90.102-11.50.412-2.10.87956.5%23+20.20.271-22.40.125-10.20.461-7.50.597
Fence and open-27.90.165-23.60.234-41.10.013-31.60.076-22.30.208-20.20.27136.4%11-42.60.020-30.30.086-27.60.124
Open+14.70.350+18.90.229+1.50.899+10.90.419+20.30.144+22.40.125+42.60.02079.0%19+12.30.362+14.90.282
Rectangle+2.40.879+6.70.666-10.80.361-1.30.918+8.10.534+10.20.461+30.30.086-12.30.36266.7%27+2.70.840
Octagon-0.30.986+4.00.800-13.40.269-4.00.765+5.40.686+7.50.597+27.60.124-14.90.282-2.70.84064.0%25
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.