VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Jeffry

Jean vs Jeffry in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 50.5% of 4,645 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 counted4,645
Win rate50.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence54.0%+3.50.115452
Open53.0%+2.60.246464
Fence and open52.9%+2.40.498193
Full fence51.8%+1.40.532461
Half fence51.8%+1.30.546481
Octagon51.0%+0.60.786474
Single wall49.4%-1.10.615484
Low fence46.8%-3.70.082494
Breakable full fence46.4%-4.10.076429
Rectangle46.1%-4.30.049466
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 13.75 on 9 df, p 0.132

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.8%461+5.50.104+0.10.981-2.10.517+5.10.116+2.50.449-1.00.814-1.20.721+5.70.082+0.80.809
Breakable full fence-5.50.10446.4%429-5.40.105-7.60.024-0.40.910-3.00.366-6.50.136-6.60.048+0.20.940-4.70.161
Half fence-0.10.981+5.40.10551.8%481-2.20.498+5.00.118+2.40.458-1.10.799-1.20.700+5.60.083+0.70.826
Breakable half fence+2.10.517+7.60.024+2.20.49854.0%452+7.20.026+4.60.159+1.10.792+1.00.770+7.80.017+2.90.373
Low fence-5.10.116+0.40.910-5.00.118-7.20.02646.8%494-2.60.412-6.10.151-6.30.053+0.60.846-4.30.182
Single wall-2.50.449+3.00.366-2.40.458-4.60.159+2.60.41249.4%484-3.50.415-3.60.263+3.20.317-1.70.604
Fence and open+1.00.814+6.50.136+1.10.799-1.10.792+6.10.151+3.50.41552.9%193-0.20.969+6.70.117+1.80.674
Open+1.20.721+6.60.048+1.20.700-1.00.770+6.30.053+3.60.263+0.20.96953.0%464+6.90.036+2.00.548
Rectangle-5.70.082-0.20.940-5.60.083-7.80.017-0.60.846-3.20.317-6.70.117-6.90.03646.1%466-4.90.132
Octagon-0.80.809+4.70.161-0.70.826-2.90.373+4.30.182+1.70.604-1.80.674-2.00.548+4.90.13251.0%474
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 counted1,795
Win rate53.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-8.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence59.5%+5.60.142158
Half fence56.9%+3.00.408174
Single wall56.8%+2.90.394190
Breakable half fence56.5%+2.60.426207
Open55.0%+1.00.759191
Fence and open53.6%-0.30.95969 ·
Octagon53.0%-0.90.780200
Rectangle50.6%-3.30.380160
Breakable full fence48.8%-5.10.161170
Low fence45.0%-8.90.009191
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 12.43 on 9 df, p 0.190

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence59.5%158+10.70.053+2.60.632+3.00.569+14.50.007+2.60.618+5.90.410+4.50.396+8.90.112+6.50.219
Breakable full fence-10.70.05348.8%170-8.10.134-7.70.136+3.80.470-8.00.128-4.80.501-6.20.243-1.80.744-4.20.423
Half fence-2.60.632+8.10.13456.9%174+0.40.941+11.90.023+0.10.992+3.30.643+1.90.712+6.30.251+3.90.450
Breakable half fence-3.00.569+7.70.136-0.40.94156.5%207+11.50.022-0.30.949+2.90.675+1.60.756+5.90.261+3.50.475
Low fence-14.50.007-3.80.470-11.90.023-11.50.02245.0%191-11.80.021-8.60.220-9.90.052-5.60.296-8.00.115
Single wall-2.60.618+8.00.128-0.10.992+0.30.949+11.80.02156.8%190+3.20.645+1.90.713+6.20.245+3.80.446
Fence and open-5.90.410+4.80.501-3.30.643-2.90.675+8.60.220-3.20.64553.6%69-1.40.847+3.00.677+0.60.929
Open-4.50.396+6.20.243-1.90.712-1.60.756+9.90.052-1.90.713+1.40.84755.0%191+4.30.416+2.00.695
Rectangle-8.90.112+1.80.744-6.30.251-5.90.261+5.60.296-6.20.245-3.00.677-4.30.41650.6%160-2.40.654
Octagon-6.50.219+4.20.423-3.90.450-3.50.475+8.00.115-3.80.446-0.60.929-2.00.695+2.40.65453.0%200
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 counted2,752
Win rate48.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open52.5%+4.20.338122
Open51.7%+3.50.233263
Breakable half fence50.8%+2.60.396240
Octagon50.2%+2.00.507255
Half fence49.5%+1.30.641297
Low fence48.0%-0.30.925294
Full fence46.9%-1.30.634290
Single wall44.7%-3.50.212284
Breakable full fence44.5%-3.70.215256
Rectangle43.3%-4.90.076291
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.12 on 9 df, p 0.426

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.9%290+2.40.580-2.60.529-3.90.367-1.10.797+2.20.601-5.60.302-4.80.258+3.60.384-3.30.442
Breakable full fence-2.40.58044.5%256-5.00.244-6.30.160-3.40.421-0.20.965-7.90.149-7.20.102+1.20.772-5.70.200
Half fence+2.60.529+5.00.24449.5%297-1.30.758+1.50.709+4.80.249-3.00.581-2.20.601+6.20.132-0.70.870
Breakable half fence+3.90.367+6.30.160+1.30.75850.8%240+2.90.509+6.10.163-1.60.770-0.90.844+7.50.083+0.60.887
Low fence+1.10.797+3.40.421-1.50.709-2.90.50948.0%294+3.20.435-4.50.403-3.80.377+4.70.258-2.20.601
Single wall-2.20.601+0.20.965-4.80.249-6.10.163-3.20.43544.7%284-7.70.152-7.00.102+1.40.732-5.50.203
Fence and open+5.60.302+7.90.149+3.00.581+1.60.770+4.50.403+7.70.15252.5%122+0.80.891+9.20.088+2.30.681
Open+4.80.258+7.20.102+2.20.601+0.90.844+3.80.377+7.00.102-0.80.89151.7%263+8.40.048+1.50.730
Rectangle-3.60.384-1.20.772-6.20.132-7.50.083-4.70.258-1.40.732-9.20.088-8.40.04843.3%291-6.90.107
Octagon+3.30.442+5.70.200+0.70.870-0.60.887+2.20.601+5.50.203-2.30.681-1.50.730+6.90.10750.2%255
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 counted98
Win rate50.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence100.0%+50.00.0225 ·
Full fence69.2%+19.20.13613 ·
Breakable full fence66.7%+16.70.5583 ·
Rectangle53.3%+3.30.77915 ·
Fence and open50.0%+0.01.0002 ·
Open50.0%+0.01.00010 ·
Low fence44.4%-5.60.7279 ·
Octagon42.1%-7.90.44319 ·
Single wall40.0%-10.00.50510 ·
Half fence30.0%-20.00.18210 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.87 on 9 df, p 0.361

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence69.2%13+2.60.931+39.20.062-30.80.160+24.80.245+29.20.161+19.20.591+19.20.349+15.90.390+27.10.131
Breakable full fence-2.60.93166.7%3+36.70.252-33.30.168+22.20.505+26.70.416+16.70.709+16.70.612+13.30.671+24.60.427
Half fence-39.20.062-36.70.25230.0%10-70.00.010-14.40.515-10.00.639-20.00.584-20.00.361-23.30.250-12.10.523
Breakable half fence+30.80.160+33.30.168+70.00.010100.0%5+55.60.038+60.00.025+50.00.088+50.00.053+46.70.058+57.90.021
Low fence-24.80.245-22.20.505+14.40.515-55.60.03844.4%9+4.40.845-5.60.887-5.60.809-8.90.673+2.30.907
Single wall-29.20.161-26.70.416+10.00.639-60.00.025-4.40.84540.0%10-10.00.793-10.00.653-13.30.513-2.10.913
Fence and open-19.20.591-16.70.709+20.00.584-50.00.088+5.60.887+10.00.79350.0%2+0.01.000-3.30.929+7.90.830
Open-19.20.349-16.70.612+20.00.361-50.00.053+5.60.809+10.00.653-0.01.00050.0%10-3.30.870+7.90.684
Rectangle-15.90.390-13.30.671+23.30.250-46.70.058+8.90.673+13.30.513+3.30.929+3.30.87053.3%15+11.20.515
Octagon-27.10.131-24.60.427+12.10.523-57.90.021-2.30.907+2.10.913-7.90.830-7.90.684-11.20.51542.1%19
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.