VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Kage

Jean vs Kage in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 50.4% of 4,521 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 counted4,521
Win rate50.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.7 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 full fence55.1%+4.70.041430
Open53.4%+3.00.166485
Rectangle51.9%+1.50.479489
Breakable half fence50.8%+0.40.876364
Low fence50.1%-0.30.882469
Half fence49.6%-0.80.694476
Fence and open49.0%-1.50.638237
Octagon48.4%-2.00.373444
Full fence48.0%-2.40.293427
Single wall47.5%-2.90.198448
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 9.53 on 9 df, p 0.390

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.0%427-7.10.037-1.60.637-2.80.430-2.10.531+0.50.891-0.90.817-5.40.104-3.90.235-0.40.903
Breakable full fence+7.10.03755.1%430+5.50.096+4.30.227+5.00.133+7.60.025+6.20.126+1.70.603+3.20.336+6.70.048
Half fence+1.60.637-5.50.09649.6%476-1.20.721-0.50.871+2.00.536+0.60.873-3.80.236-2.40.463+1.20.726
Breakable half fence+2.80.430-4.30.227+1.20.72150.8%364+0.70.837+3.30.353+1.90.653-2.60.457-1.10.746+2.40.497
Low fence+2.10.531-5.00.133+0.50.871-0.70.83750.1%469+2.60.438+1.20.771-3.30.309-1.80.570+1.70.611
Single wall-0.50.891-7.60.025-2.00.536-3.30.353-2.60.43847.5%448-1.40.727-5.90.074-4.40.179-0.90.793
Fence and open+0.90.817-6.20.126-0.60.873-1.90.653-1.20.771+1.40.72749.0%237-4.50.260-3.00.449+0.50.897
Open+5.40.104-1.70.603+3.80.236+2.60.457+3.30.309+5.90.074+4.50.26053.4%485+1.50.648+5.00.129
Rectangle+3.90.235-3.20.336+2.40.463+1.10.746+1.80.570+4.40.179+3.00.449-1.50.64851.9%489+3.50.283
Octagon+0.40.903-6.70.048-1.20.726-2.40.497-1.70.611+0.90.793-0.50.897-5.00.129-3.50.28348.4%444
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 counted1,238
Win rate54.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-8.4 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
Single wall57.4%+3.50.452108
Fence and open56.9%+3.00.60072 ·
Rectangle56.2%+2.30.610112
Breakable full fence56.2%+2.20.603121
Low fence56.0%+2.00.621134
Breakable half fence55.2%+1.20.81487
Octagon53.3%-0.70.867137
Half fence52.6%-1.40.736135
Open52.1%-1.80.647140
Full fence45.5%-8.40.061112
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 5.04 on 9 df, p 0.831

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.5%112-10.70.104-7.00.269-9.60.177-10.40.103-11.90.078-11.40.131-6.60.297-10.70.109-7.70.224
Breakable full fence+10.70.10456.2%121+3.60.563+1.00.883+0.20.971-1.20.854-0.70.919+4.10.512-0.10.994+2.90.639
Half fence+7.00.269-3.60.56352.6%135-2.60.707-3.40.578-4.80.454-4.30.550+0.50.940-3.70.566-0.70.909
Breakable half fence+9.60.177-1.00.883+2.60.70755.2%87-0.80.907-2.20.754-1.80.823+3.00.656-1.10.879+1.90.782
Low fence+10.40.103-0.20.971+3.40.578+0.80.90756.0%134-1.40.823-1.00.893+3.80.525-0.30.965+2.70.657
Single wall+11.90.078+1.20.854+4.80.454+2.20.754+1.40.82357.4%108+0.50.951+5.30.409+1.20.862+4.10.519
Fence and open+11.40.131+0.70.919+4.30.550+1.80.823+1.00.893-0.50.95156.9%72+4.80.507+0.70.926+3.70.614
Open+6.60.297-4.10.512-0.50.940-3.00.656-3.80.525-5.30.409-4.80.50752.1%140-4.10.516-1.10.849
Rectangle+10.70.109+0.10.994+3.70.566+1.10.879+0.30.965-1.20.862-0.70.926+4.10.51656.2%112+3.00.640
Octagon+7.70.224-2.90.639+0.70.909-1.90.782-2.70.657-4.10.519-3.70.614+1.10.849-3.00.64053.3%137
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 counted3,063
Win rate48.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.9 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
Breakable full fence54.8%+5.90.033292
Open54.1%+5.20.045329
Rectangle51.1%+2.30.367352
Half fence48.4%-0.50.864316
Breakable half fence48.0%-0.90.764244
Low fence47.4%-1.40.589310
Full fence47.3%-1.60.568296
Octagon47.3%-1.60.562292
Fence and open44.6%-4.30.270157
Single wall43.2%-5.60.036310
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 14.50 on 9 df, p 0.106

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.3%296-7.50.069-1.10.782-0.70.880-0.10.976+4.10.314+2.70.582-6.80.089-3.80.330+0.00.993
Breakable full fence+7.50.06954.8%292+6.40.116+6.80.114+7.40.070+11.60.005+10.20.039+0.70.863+3.60.355+7.50.069
Half fence+1.10.782-6.40.11648.4%316+0.50.913+1.00.803+5.20.192+3.80.432-5.70.149-2.70.483+1.20.775
Breakable half fence+0.70.880-6.80.114-0.50.91348.0%244+0.50.901+4.70.267+3.40.510-6.20.145-3.20.444+0.70.873
Low fence+0.10.976-7.40.070-1.00.803-0.50.90147.4%310+4.20.294+2.80.562-6.70.091-3.70.340+0.20.969
Single wall-4.10.314-11.60.005-5.20.192-4.70.267-4.20.29443.2%310-1.40.780-10.90.006-7.90.042-4.00.320
Fence and open-2.70.582-10.20.039-3.80.432-3.40.510-2.80.562+1.40.78044.6%157-9.50.050-6.50.172-2.70.588
Open+6.80.089-0.70.863+5.70.149+6.20.145+6.70.091+10.90.006+9.50.05054.1%329+3.00.438+6.80.089
Rectangle+3.80.330-3.60.355+2.70.483+3.20.444+3.70.340+7.90.042+6.50.172-3.00.43851.1%352+3.90.327
Octagon-0.00.993-7.50.069-1.20.775-0.70.873-0.20.969+4.00.320+2.70.588-6.80.089-3.90.32747.3%292
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 counted220
Win rate52.3%
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
Full fence73.7%+21.40.05119 ·
Fence and open62.5%+10.20.5558 ·
Breakable half fence60.6%+8.30.29933 ·
Single wall56.7%+4.40.60430 ·
Breakable full fence52.9%+0.70.95417 ·
Low fence52.0%-0.30.97725 ·
Open50.0%-2.30.85016 ·
Half fence48.0%-4.30.65025 ·
Rectangle44.0%-8.30.37925 ·
Octagon26.7%-25.60.04015 ·
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 9.79 on 9 df, p 0.368

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence73.7%19+20.70.196+25.70.086+13.10.340+21.70.143+17.00.229+11.20.561+23.70.149+29.70.049+47.00.006
Breakable full fence-20.70.19652.9%17+4.90.753-7.70.603+0.90.952-3.70.805-9.60.653+2.90.866+8.90.569+26.30.131
Half fence-25.70.086-4.90.75348.0%25-12.60.339-4.00.777-8.70.522-14.50.475-2.00.901+4.00.777+21.30.182
Breakable half fence-13.10.340+7.70.603+12.60.33960.6%33+8.60.512+3.90.751-1.90.922+10.60.482+16.60.209+33.90.029
Low fence-21.70.143-0.90.952+4.00.777-8.60.51252.0%25-4.70.729-10.50.604+2.00.901+8.00.571+25.30.117
Single wall-17.00.229+3.70.805+8.70.522-3.90.751+4.70.72956.7%30-5.80.767+6.70.665+12.70.349+30.00.057
Fence and open-11.20.561+9.60.653+14.50.475+1.90.922+10.50.604+5.80.76762.5%8+12.50.562+18.50.362+35.80.094
Open-23.70.149-2.90.866+2.00.901-10.60.482-2.00.901-6.70.665-12.50.56250.0%16+6.00.707+23.30.183
Rectangle-29.70.049-8.90.569-4.00.777-16.60.209-8.00.571-12.70.349-18.50.362-6.00.70744.0%25+17.30.273
Octagon-47.00.006-26.30.131-21.30.182-33.90.029-25.30.117-30.00.057-35.80.094-23.30.183-17.30.27326.7%15
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.