VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

El Blaze vs Vanessa

El Blaze vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: El Blaze wins 52.1% of 2,031 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 counted2,031
Win rate52.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.9 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
Fence and open60.0%+7.90.074120
Open56.7%+4.60.205171
Breakable full fence56.1%+4.00.235196
Octagon53.4%+1.30.671236
Full fence52.5%+0.40.912181
Rectangle52.1%+0.00.992188
Low fence50.8%-1.30.707189
Half fence50.6%-1.40.641231
Breakable half fence50.0%-2.10.521210
Single wall47.3%-4.80.149205
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 8.32 on 9 df, p 0.502

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.5%181-3.60.479+1.80.711+2.50.624+1.70.745+5.20.311-7.50.199-4.20.425+0.40.945-0.90.855
Breakable full fence+3.60.47956.1%196+5.50.259+6.10.217+5.30.295+8.80.078-3.90.498-0.60.908+4.00.432+2.70.570
Half fence-1.80.711-5.50.25950.6%231+0.70.892-0.10.977+3.30.487-9.30.096-6.10.227-1.50.763-2.70.553
Breakable half fence-2.50.624-6.10.217-0.70.89250.0%210-0.80.874+2.70.585-10.00.080-6.70.191-2.10.672-3.40.475
Low fence-1.70.745-5.30.295+0.10.977+0.80.87450.8%189+3.50.490-9.20.113-5.90.260-1.30.796-2.60.594
Single wall-5.20.311-8.80.078-3.30.487-2.70.585-3.50.49047.3%205-12.70.027-9.40.069-4.80.341-6.10.203
Fence and open+7.50.199+3.90.498+9.30.096+10.00.080+9.20.113+12.70.02760.0%120+3.30.577+7.90.175+6.60.235
Open+4.20.425+0.60.908+6.10.227+6.70.191+5.90.260+9.40.069-3.30.57756.7%171+4.60.382+3.30.505
Rectangle-0.40.945-4.00.432+1.50.763+2.10.672+1.30.796+4.80.341-7.90.175-4.60.38252.1%188-1.30.796
Octagon+0.90.855-2.70.570+2.70.553+3.40.475+2.60.594+6.10.203-6.60.235-3.30.505+1.30.79653.4%236
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 counted864
Win rate49.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.1 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
Open56.1%+6.50.22082
Breakable full fence55.7%+6.00.23388
Octagon55.5%+5.80.193110
Fence and open54.2%+4.50.52048 ·
Full fence53.4%+3.80.50173 ·
Half fence49.0%-0.70.890100
Rectangle47.3%-2.40.67274 ·
Low fence45.1%-4.60.42071 ·
Single wall42.9%-6.80.19084
Breakable half fence42.5%-7.10.16187
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 8.93 on 9 df, p 0.443

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.4%73-2.30.775+4.40.565+10.90.169+8.30.316+10.60.186-0.80.936-2.70.739+6.10.458-2.00.787
Breakable full fence+2.30.77555.7%88+6.70.360+13.20.082+10.60.183+12.80.093+1.50.865-0.40.956+8.40.287+0.20.974
Half fence-4.40.565-6.70.36049.0%100+6.50.376+3.90.612+6.10.405-5.20.556-7.10.340+1.70.824-6.50.350
Breakable half fence-10.90.169-13.20.082-6.50.37642.5%87-2.50.749-0.30.965-11.60.194-13.60.078-4.80.544-12.90.072
Low fence-8.30.316-10.60.183-3.90.612+2.50.74945.1%71+2.20.782-9.10.330-11.00.174-2.20.788-10.40.172
Single wall-10.60.186-12.80.093-6.10.405+0.30.965-2.20.78242.9%84-11.30.210-13.20.088-4.40.576-12.60.082
Fence and open+0.80.936-1.50.865+5.20.556+11.60.194+9.10.330+11.30.21054.2%48-1.90.831+6.90.459-1.30.881
Open+2.70.739+0.40.956+7.10.340+13.60.078+11.00.174+13.20.088+1.90.83156.1%82+8.80.272+0.70.929
Rectangle-6.10.458-8.40.287-1.70.824+4.80.544+2.20.788+4.40.576-6.90.459-8.80.27247.3%74-8.20.277
Octagon+2.00.787-0.20.974+6.50.350+12.90.072+10.40.172+12.60.082+1.30.881-0.70.929+8.20.27755.5%110
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 counted852
Win rate52.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.5 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
Fence and open69.6%+17.50.00756 ·
Breakable full fence59.5%+7.40.16879 ·
Low fence52.9%+0.80.87285
Rectangle52.6%+0.50.93378 ·
Open52.5%+0.30.95561 ·
Single wall52.4%+0.30.95082
Breakable half fence52.0%-0.10.98898
Octagon48.9%-3.20.51394
Full fence48.9%-3.20.51988
Half fence44.6%-7.50.12592
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 11.43 on 9 df, p 0.247

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.9%88-10.60.169+4.30.563-3.20.665-4.10.592-3.60.641-20.80.014-3.60.666-3.70.634-0.10.992
Breakable full fence+10.60.16959.5%79+14.90.051+7.50.321+6.50.398+7.00.367-10.20.227+7.00.405+6.90.382+10.60.165
Half fence-4.30.563-14.90.05144.6%92-7.50.303-8.40.265-7.90.299-25.10.003-7.90.338-8.00.298-4.40.550
Breakable half fence+3.20.665-7.50.321+7.50.30352.0%98-0.90.903-0.40.958-17.60.033-0.40.959-0.50.945+3.10.667
Low fence+4.10.592-6.50.398+8.40.265+0.90.90352.9%85+0.50.948-16.70.048+0.50.954+0.40.962+4.00.592
Single wall+3.60.641-7.00.367+7.90.299+0.40.958-0.50.94852.4%82-17.20.043-0.00.998-0.10.987+3.50.643
Fence and open+20.80.014+10.20.227+25.10.003+17.60.033+16.70.048+17.20.04369.6%56+17.20.057+17.10.047+20.70.013
Open+3.60.666-7.00.405+7.90.338+0.40.959-0.50.954+0.00.998-17.20.05752.5%61-0.10.990+3.50.668
Rectangle+3.70.634-6.90.382+8.00.298+0.50.945-0.40.962+0.10.987-17.10.047+0.10.99052.6%78+3.60.636
Octagon+0.10.992-10.60.165+4.40.550-3.10.667-4.00.592-3.50.643-20.70.013-3.50.668-3.60.63648.9%94
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 counted315
Win rate58.7%
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
Half fence69.2%+10.50.15539 ·
Breakable half fence68.0%+9.30.32725 ·
Open67.9%+9.10.30428 ·
Full fence65.0%+6.30.55620 ·
Rectangle61.1%+2.40.75836 ·
Octagon59.4%+0.70.93832 ·
Low fence57.6%-1.10.88733 ·
Breakable full fence48.3%-10.40.23029 ·
Single wall46.1%-12.60.08839 ·
Fence and open43.8%-15.00.21216 ·
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 9.40 on 9 df, p 0.401

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence65.0%20+16.70.247-4.20.742-3.00.832+7.40.592+18.90.170+21.20.202-2.90.836+3.90.773+5.60.685
Breakable full fence-16.70.24748.3%29-20.90.081-19.70.144-9.30.464+2.10.862+4.50.771-19.60.134-12.80.301-11.10.385
Half fence+4.20.742+20.90.08169.2%39+1.20.917+11.70.305+23.10.039+25.50.077+1.40.905+8.10.460+9.80.387
Breakable half fence+3.00.832+19.70.144-1.20.91768.0%25+10.40.418+21.90.087+24.20.124+0.10.991+6.90.582+8.60.503
Low fence-7.40.592+9.30.464-11.70.305-10.40.41857.6%33+11.40.334+13.80.363-10.30.409-3.50.765-1.80.883
Single wall-18.90.170-2.10.862-23.10.039-21.90.087-11.40.33446.1%39+2.40.871-21.70.078-15.00.195-13.20.267
Fence and open-21.20.202-4.50.771-25.50.077-24.20.124-13.80.363-2.40.87143.8%16-24.10.118-17.40.245-15.60.306
Open+2.90.836+19.60.134-1.40.905-0.10.991+10.30.409+21.70.078+24.10.11867.9%28+6.80.577+8.50.496
Rectangle-3.90.773+12.80.301-8.10.460-6.90.582+3.50.765+15.00.195+17.40.245-6.80.57761.1%36+1.70.884
Octagon-5.60.685+11.10.385-9.80.387-8.60.503+1.80.883+13.20.267+15.60.306-8.50.496-1.70.88459.4%32
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.