VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Goh vs Kage

Goh vs Kage in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Goh wins 48.5% of 4,702 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 counted4,702
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.7 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Goh's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open54.2%+5.70.069240
Breakable full fence52.4%+4.00.074452
Rectangle50.4%+1.90.356498
Open49.5%+1.00.637475
Single wall48.0%-0.50.817488
Low fence47.1%-1.40.520497
Octagon46.2%-2.30.298470
Half fence45.5%-3.00.175462
Full fence45.3%-3.10.168437
Breakable half fence44.2%-4.20.059450
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

Goh's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 14.62 on 9 df, p 0.102

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.3%437-7.10.034-0.10.965+1.10.745-1.80.588-2.60.421-8.90.027-4.20.208-5.10.120-0.90.795
Breakable full fence+7.10.03452.4%452+7.00.035+8.20.014+5.30.100+4.50.170-1.70.664+3.00.368+2.00.531+6.30.057
Half fence+0.10.965-7.00.03545.5%462+1.20.708-1.60.613-2.50.441-8.70.028-4.00.218-5.00.125-0.70.826
Breakable half fence-1.10.745-8.20.014-1.20.70844.2%450-2.90.378-3.70.252-9.90.013-5.20.110-6.20.057-1.90.553
Low fence+1.80.588-5.30.100+1.60.613+2.90.37847.1%497-0.90.785-7.10.071-2.40.456-3.30.295+0.90.776
Single wall+2.60.421-4.50.170+2.50.441+3.70.252+0.90.78548.0%488-6.20.115-1.50.636-2.50.442+1.80.581
Fence and open+8.90.027+1.70.664+8.70.028+9.90.013+7.10.071+6.20.11554.2%240+4.70.236+3.80.338+8.00.044
Open+4.20.208-3.00.368+4.00.218+5.20.110+2.40.456+1.50.636-4.70.23649.5%475-0.90.772+3.30.309
Rectangle+5.10.120-2.00.531+5.00.125+6.20.057+3.30.295+2.50.442-3.80.338+0.90.77250.4%498+4.20.188
Octagon+0.90.795-6.30.057+0.70.826+1.90.553-0.90.776-1.80.581-8.00.044-3.30.309-4.20.18846.2%470
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 counted1,757
Win rate49.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches9.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Goh's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open59.4%+9.80.04896
Breakable full fence56.2%+6.70.062176
Rectangle50.0%+0.40.909162
Half fence49.4%-0.20.958160
Low fence48.5%-1.10.743196
Octagon47.8%-1.80.636157
Full fence47.1%-2.50.467187
Open46.3%-3.20.385164
Single wall44.8%-4.80.160192
Breakable half fence44.2%-5.40.137172
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

Goh's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 11.72 on 9 df, p 0.230

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.1%187-9.20.080-2.30.667+2.90.585-1.40.782+2.30.658-12.30.050+0.70.893-2.90.583-0.70.895
Breakable full fence+9.20.08056.2%176+6.90.207+12.10.024+7.80.134+11.50.028-3.10.618+9.90.068+6.20.250+8.50.122
Half fence+2.30.667-6.90.20749.4%160+5.20.344+0.90.865+4.60.391-10.00.121+3.00.585-0.60.911+1.60.775
Breakable half fence-2.90.585-12.10.024-5.20.34444.2%172-4.30.411-0.60.908-15.20.017-2.10.692-5.80.287-3.60.515
Low fence+1.40.782-7.80.134-0.90.865+4.30.41148.5%196+3.70.468-10.90.080+2.10.687-1.50.773+0.70.896
Single wall-2.30.658-11.50.028-4.60.391+0.60.908-3.70.46844.8%192-14.60.020-1.60.770-5.20.328-3.00.579
Fence and open+12.30.050+3.10.618+10.00.121+15.20.017+10.90.080+14.60.02059.4%96+13.00.042+9.40.144+11.60.073
Open-0.70.893-9.90.068-3.00.585+2.10.692-2.10.687+1.60.770-13.00.04246.3%164-3.70.509-1.40.798
Rectangle+2.90.583-6.20.250+0.60.911+5.80.287+1.50.773+5.20.328-9.40.144+3.70.50950.0%162+2.20.690
Octagon+0.70.895-8.50.122-1.60.775+3.60.515-0.70.896+3.00.579-11.60.073+1.40.798-2.20.69047.8%157
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 counted2,597
Win rate48.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Goh's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open54.0%+6.00.167124
Rectangle51.2%+3.20.242293
Open50.7%+2.80.336272
Breakable full fence49.8%+1.80.543251
Single wall49.0%+1.00.739247
Octagon47.3%-0.70.818281
Low fence46.3%-1.70.564272
Full fence45.4%-2.60.428218
Breakable half fence43.4%-4.50.136244
Half fence43.2%-4.80.094271
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

Goh's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.71 on 9 df, p 0.375

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.4%218-4.40.343+2.20.620+2.00.670-0.90.841-3.60.441-8.60.125-5.30.241-5.80.196-1.90.670
Breakable full fence+4.40.34349.8%251+6.60.129+6.40.156+3.50.426+0.80.856-4.20.441-0.90.831-1.40.746+2.50.569
Half fence-2.20.620-6.60.12943.2%271-0.30.951-3.10.460-5.80.185-10.90.045-7.60.078-8.00.057-4.20.327
Breakable half fence-2.00.670-6.40.156+0.30.95143.4%244-2.90.511-5.50.218-10.60.054-7.30.098-7.80.073-3.90.372
Low fence+0.90.841-3.50.426+3.10.460+2.90.51146.3%272-2.70.544-7.70.155-4.40.303-4.90.247-1.00.812
Single wall+3.60.441-0.80.856+5.80.185+5.50.218+2.70.54449.0%247-5.00.359-1.80.691-2.20.609+1.70.704
Fence and open+8.60.125+4.20.441+10.90.045+10.60.054+7.70.155+5.00.35954.0%124+3.30.543+2.80.596+6.70.214
Open+5.30.241+0.90.831+7.60.078+7.30.098+4.40.303+1.80.691-3.30.54350.7%272-0.50.913+3.40.423
Rectangle+5.80.196+1.40.746+8.00.057+7.80.073+4.90.247+2.20.609-2.80.596+0.50.91351.2%293+3.90.355
Octagon+1.90.670-2.50.569+4.20.327+3.90.372+1.00.812-1.70.704-6.70.214-3.40.423-3.90.35547.3%281
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 counted348
Win rate46.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Goh's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall55.1%+8.80.18149 ·
Open53.9%+7.60.31439 ·
Breakable full fence52.0%+5.70.55025 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%+3.70.64634 ·
Rectangle46.5%+0.20.97243 ·
Half fence45.2%-1.10.89731 ·
Low fence44.8%-1.40.87129 ·
Full fence34.4%-11.90.15732 ·
Fence and open30.0%-16.30.13320 ·
Octagon28.1%-18.10.03132 ·
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

Goh's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 11.08 on 9 df, p 0.270

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence34.4%32-17.60.181-10.80.382-15.60.199-10.40.404-20.70.068+4.40.744-19.50.101-12.10.291+6.30.590
Breakable full fence+17.60.18152.0%25+6.80.611+2.00.879+7.20.599-3.10.800+22.00.138-1.90.885+5.50.662+23.90.066
Half fence+10.80.382-6.80.61145.2%31-4.80.696+0.30.979-9.90.386+15.20.279-8.70.470-1.40.908+17.00.160
Breakable half fence+15.60.199-2.00.879+4.80.69650.0%34+5.20.682-5.10.647+20.00.151-3.90.743+3.50.761+21.90.069
Low fence+10.40.404-7.20.599-0.30.979-5.20.68244.8%29-10.30.380+14.80.295-9.00.462-1.70.888+16.70.175
Single wall+20.70.068+3.10.800+9.90.386+5.10.647+10.30.38055.1%49+25.10.058+1.20.906+8.60.411+27.00.017
Fence and open-4.40.744-22.00.138-15.20.279-20.00.151-14.80.295-25.10.05830.0%20-23.90.082-16.50.215+1.90.885
Open+19.50.101+1.90.885+8.70.470+3.90.743+9.00.462-1.20.906+23.90.08253.9%39+7.30.507+25.70.029
Rectangle+12.10.291-5.50.662+1.40.908-3.50.761+1.70.888-8.60.411+16.50.215-7.30.50746.5%43+18.40.106
Octagon-6.30.590-23.90.066-17.00.160-21.90.069-16.70.175-27.00.017-1.90.885-25.70.029-18.40.10628.1%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.