VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Lei Fei

Jean vs Lei Fei in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 48.1% of 2,785 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 counted2,785
Win rate48.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.8 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 fence51.6%+3.40.194320
Breakable half fence51.4%+3.20.280257
Single wall51.1%+3.00.307266
Half fence48.9%+0.70.804266
Open48.5%+0.40.892274
Rectangle48.2%+0.00.997299
Octagon47.9%-0.30.926259
Full fence46.7%-1.50.576315
Low fence45.5%-2.60.377257
Fence and open41.4%-6.80.108133
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 6.90 on 9 df, p 0.647

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.7%315-4.90.217-2.20.596-4.70.264+1.10.785-4.50.284+5.30.302-1.90.650-1.50.711-1.20.773
Breakable full fence+4.90.21751.6%320+2.70.517+0.20.962+6.00.149+0.40.917+10.20.048+3.00.463+3.40.398+3.70.378
Half fence+2.20.596-2.70.51748.9%266-2.50.569+3.30.443-2.30.603+7.50.156+0.30.938+0.70.866+1.00.819
Breakable half fence+4.70.264-0.20.962+2.50.56951.4%257+5.80.186+0.20.957+10.00.061+2.80.516+3.20.452+3.50.429
Low fence-1.10.785-6.00.149-3.30.443-5.80.18645.5%257-5.60.200+4.20.432-3.00.487-2.60.535-2.40.592
Single wall+4.50.284-0.40.917+2.30.603-0.20.957+5.60.20051.1%266+9.80.065+2.60.548+3.00.481+3.20.456
Fence and open-5.30.302-10.20.048-7.50.156-10.00.061-4.20.432-9.80.06541.4%133-7.20.173-6.80.190-6.50.220
Open+1.90.650-3.00.463-0.30.938-2.80.516+3.00.487-2.60.548+7.20.17348.5%274+0.40.928+0.70.878
Rectangle+1.50.711-3.40.398-0.70.866-3.20.452+2.60.535-3.00.481+6.80.190-0.40.92848.2%299+0.30.947
Octagon+1.20.773-3.70.378-1.00.819-3.50.429+2.40.592-3.20.456+6.50.220-0.70.878-0.30.94747.9%259
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 counted763
Win rate50.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.0 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 fence55.5%+5.00.282101
Single wall54.4%+3.90.53857 ·
Rectangle52.6%+2.20.69076 ·
Open52.0%+1.50.77975 ·
Breakable half fence51.2%+0.80.88180
Octagon50.7%+0.30.96369 ·
Low fence47.4%-3.10.57076 ·
Half fence47.3%-3.20.56774 ·
Full fence46.8%-3.60.45094
Fence and open43.8%-6.70.43832 ·
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 3.25 on 9 df, p 0.953

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.8%94-8.60.228-0.50.950-4.40.559-0.60.942-7.60.367+3.10.764-5.20.502-5.80.450-3.90.621
Breakable full fence+8.60.22855.5%101+8.20.286+4.20.574+8.10.287+1.10.898+11.70.248+3.50.650+2.80.710+4.70.544
Half fence+0.50.950-8.20.28647.3%74-4.00.624-0.10.993-7.10.421+3.50.737-4.70.566-5.30.514-3.40.682
Breakable half fence+4.40.559-4.20.574+4.00.62451.2%80+3.90.628-3.10.717+7.50.473-0.80.926-1.40.863+0.50.949
Low fence+0.60.942-8.10.287+0.10.993-3.90.62847.4%76-7.00.423+3.60.731-4.60.569-5.30.516-3.40.686
Single wall+7.60.367-1.10.898+7.10.421+3.10.717+7.00.42354.4%57+10.60.336+2.40.786+1.80.841+3.70.682
Fence and open-3.10.764-11.70.248-3.50.737-7.50.473-3.60.731-10.60.33643.8%32-8.20.435-8.90.399-7.00.514
Open+5.20.502-3.50.650+4.70.566+0.80.926+4.60.569-2.40.786+8.20.43552.0%75-0.60.938+1.30.878
Rectangle+5.80.450-2.80.710+5.30.514+1.40.863+5.30.516-1.80.841+8.90.399+0.60.93852.6%76+1.90.818
Octagon+3.90.621-4.70.544+3.40.682-0.50.949+3.40.686-3.70.682+7.00.514-1.30.878-1.90.81850.7%69
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 counted1,821
Win rate48.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.5 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 fence54.2%+5.70.141155
Breakable full fence52.8%+4.30.206195
Single wall50.5%+2.00.564190
Half fence50.3%+1.80.636165
Octagon49.1%+0.60.874171
Open48.1%-0.50.896183
Full fence47.1%-1.40.666210
Low fence46.6%-2.00.602161
Rectangle46.6%-2.00.549204
Fence and open42.0%-6.50.21188
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 6.01 on 9 df, p 0.738

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.1%210-5.70.254-3.20.543-7.00.183+0.60.915-3.40.499+5.10.420-0.90.852+0.60.907-2.00.700
Breakable full fence+5.70.25452.8%195+2.50.634-1.40.798+6.20.241+2.30.652+10.80.093+4.70.358+6.20.212+3.70.480
Half fence+3.20.543-2.50.63450.3%165-3.90.486+3.70.502-0.20.967+8.20.210+2.20.680+3.70.475+1.20.829
Breakable half fence+7.00.183+1.40.798+3.90.48654.2%155+7.60.176+3.70.498+12.10.069+6.10.263+7.60.152+5.10.360
Low fence-0.60.915-6.20.241-3.70.502-7.60.17646.6%161-4.00.462+4.50.491-1.50.780+0.00.998-2.50.643
Single wall+3.40.499-2.30.652+0.20.967-3.70.498+4.00.46250.5%190+8.50.188+2.40.638+4.00.432+1.40.790
Fence and open-5.10.420-10.80.093-8.20.210-12.10.069-4.50.491-8.50.18842.0%88-6.00.350-4.50.476-7.10.280
Open+0.90.852-4.70.358-2.20.680-6.10.263+1.50.780-2.40.638+6.00.35048.1%183+1.50.765-1.00.846
Rectangle-0.60.907-6.20.212-3.70.475-7.60.152-0.00.998-4.00.432+4.50.476-1.50.76546.6%204-2.50.622
Octagon+2.00.700-3.70.480-1.20.829-5.10.360+2.50.643-1.40.790+7.10.280+1.00.846+2.50.62249.1%171
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 counted201
Win rate35.8%
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
Rectangle47.4%+11.60.27019 ·
Single wall47.4%+11.60.27019 ·
Half fence44.4%+8.60.31527 ·
Open37.5%+1.70.88416 ·
Full fence36.4%+0.50.96911 ·
Breakable half fence31.8%-4.00.67822 ·
Fence and open30.8%-5.00.69413 ·
Low fence30.0%-5.80.56720 ·
Octagon26.3%-9.50.36419 ·
Breakable full fence25.0%-10.80.23924 ·
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 5.66 on 9 df, p 0.773

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence36.4%11+11.40.490-8.10.647+4.50.794+6.40.717-11.00.558+5.60.772-1.10.952-11.00.558+10.00.563
Breakable full fence-11.40.49025.0%24-19.40.147-6.80.608-5.00.711-22.40.126-5.80.706-12.50.398-22.40.126-1.30.922
Half fence+8.10.647+19.40.14744.4%27+12.60.367+14.40.314-2.90.845+13.70.408+6.90.655-2.90.845+18.10.210
Breakable half fence-4.50.794+6.80.608-12.60.36731.8%22+1.80.899-15.60.309+1.10.948-5.70.715-15.60.309+5.50.699
Low fence-6.40.717+5.00.711-14.40.314-1.80.89930.0%20-17.40.265-0.80.963-7.50.635-17.40.265+3.70.798
Single wall+11.00.558+22.40.126+2.90.845+15.60.309+17.40.26547.4%19+16.60.348+9.90.557+0.01.000+21.10.179
Fence and open-5.60.772+5.80.706-13.70.408-1.10.948+0.80.963-16.60.34830.8%13-6.70.705-16.60.348+4.50.783
Open+1.10.952+12.50.398-6.90.655+5.70.715+7.50.635-9.90.557+6.70.70537.5%16-9.90.557+11.20.478
Rectangle+11.00.558+22.40.126+2.90.845+15.60.309+17.40.265-0.01.000+16.60.348+9.90.55747.4%19+21.10.179
Octagon-10.00.563+1.30.922-18.10.210-5.50.699-3.70.798-21.10.179-4.50.783-11.20.478-21.10.17926.3%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.