VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Lion

Jean vs Lion in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 50.1% of 3,857 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 counted3,857
Win rate50.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.6 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 open55.7%+5.60.094210
Breakable full fence52.7%+2.60.269414
Full fence52.0%+2.00.449342
Octagon50.3%+0.20.939348
Half fence50.0%-0.10.970394
Rectangle49.9%-0.20.927343
Breakable half fence49.3%-0.80.727420
Single wall48.3%-1.80.422437
Open48.1%-2.00.419364
Low fence47.4%-2.70.252401
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 6.73 on 9 df, p 0.665

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.0%342-0.60.867+2.00.580+2.80.448+4.70.205+3.80.297-3.70.402+4.00.292+2.20.566+1.80.644
Breakable full fence+0.60.86752.7%414+2.70.450+3.40.330+5.30.132+4.40.202-3.00.469+4.60.202+2.80.442+2.40.514
Half fence-2.00.580-2.70.45050.0%394+0.70.839+2.60.460+1.70.621-5.70.181+1.90.597+0.10.969-0.30.938
Breakable half fence-2.80.448-3.40.330-0.70.83949.3%420+1.90.585+1.00.769-6.40.128+1.20.736-0.60.876-1.00.782
Low fence-4.70.205-5.30.132-2.60.460-1.90.58547.4%401-0.90.794-8.30.050-0.70.848-2.50.501-2.90.427
Single wall-3.80.297-4.40.202-1.70.621-1.00.769+0.90.79448.3%437-7.40.077+0.20.953-1.60.663-2.00.577
Fence and open+3.70.402+3.00.469+5.70.181+6.40.128+8.30.050+7.40.07755.7%210+7.60.078+5.90.181+5.40.214
Open-4.00.292-4.60.202-1.90.597-1.20.736+0.70.848-0.20.953-7.60.07848.1%364-1.80.637-2.20.555
Rectangle-2.20.566-2.80.442-0.10.969+0.60.876+2.50.501+1.60.663-5.90.181+1.80.63749.9%343-0.40.909
Octagon-1.80.644-2.40.514+0.30.938+1.00.782+2.90.427+2.00.577-5.40.214+2.20.555+0.40.90950.3%348
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 counted1,324
Win rate54.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.5 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
Fence and open65.1%+11.00.07363 ·
Octagon58.6%+4.50.259140
Low fence56.9%+2.80.508123
Breakable half fence56.4%+2.40.555140
Full fence54.5%+0.50.914121
Breakable full fence53.3%-0.80.855135
Rectangle52.6%-1.50.736116
Half fence50.0%-4.10.287150
Single wall49.7%-4.40.239157
Open49.5%-4.50.321109
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 8.19 on 9 df, p 0.515

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.5%121+1.20.846+4.50.457-1.90.760-2.40.710+4.90.421-10.50.169+5.00.448+2.00.762-4.00.513
Breakable full fence-1.20.84653.3%135+3.30.574-3.10.606-3.60.564+3.60.534-11.80.120+3.80.556+0.70.906-5.20.382
Half fence-4.50.457-3.30.57450.0%150-6.40.273-6.90.255+0.30.956-15.10.044+0.50.942-2.60.676-8.60.143
Breakable half fence+1.90.760+3.10.606+6.40.27356.4%140-0.50.937+6.80.245-8.70.246+6.90.280+3.80.539-2.10.717
Low fence+2.40.710+3.60.564+6.90.255+0.50.93756.9%123+7.20.229-8.20.282+7.40.261+4.30.502-1.70.786
Single wall-4.90.421-3.60.534-0.30.956-6.80.245-7.20.22949.7%157-15.40.038+0.10.982-2.90.635-8.90.125
Fence and open+10.50.169+11.80.120+15.10.044+8.70.246+8.20.282+15.40.03865.1%63+15.50.048+12.50.107+6.50.380
Open-5.00.448-3.80.556-0.50.942-6.90.280-7.40.261-0.10.982-15.50.04849.5%109-3.00.648-9.00.156
Rectangle-2.00.762-0.70.906+2.60.676-3.80.539-4.30.502+2.90.635-12.50.107+3.00.64852.6%116-6.00.337
Octagon+4.00.513+5.20.382+8.60.143+2.10.717+1.70.786+8.90.125-6.50.380+9.00.156+6.00.33758.6%140
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 counted2,279
Win rate47.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.6 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 fence52.3%+4.60.117258
Full fence51.5%+3.80.264202
Fence and open50.4%+2.60.521141
Rectangle49.0%+1.30.705202
Half fence48.9%+1.10.720223
Breakable half fence46.8%-1.00.747248
Open46.0%-1.80.563235
Single wall45.7%-2.00.502245
Octagon43.9%-3.80.272189
Low fence43.6%-4.10.189227
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 7.40 on 9 df, p 0.596

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.5%202-0.80.858+2.60.592+4.70.320+7.90.103+5.80.224+1.10.837+5.50.249+2.50.619+7.60.134
Breakable full fence+0.80.85852.3%258+3.50.451+5.60.212+8.70.055+6.60.138+2.00.706+6.40.158+3.30.480+8.40.079
Half fence-2.60.592-3.50.45148.9%223+2.10.648+5.30.263+3.20.493-1.50.784+2.90.531-0.10.978+5.00.314
Breakable half fence-4.70.320-5.60.212-2.10.64846.8%248+3.20.489+1.10.813-3.60.497+0.80.857-2.20.637+2.90.552
Low fence-7.90.103-8.70.055-5.30.263-3.20.48943.6%227-2.10.646-6.70.207-2.40.612-5.40.263-0.30.951
Single wall-5.80.224-6.60.138-3.20.493-1.10.813+2.10.64645.7%245-4.60.379-0.20.957-3.30.487+1.80.709
Fence and open-1.10.837-2.00.706+1.50.784+3.60.497+6.70.207+4.60.37950.4%141+4.40.409+1.30.806+6.40.246
Open-5.50.249-6.40.158-2.90.531-0.80.857+2.40.612+0.20.957-4.40.40946.0%235-3.00.524+2.00.674
Rectangle-2.50.619-3.30.480+0.10.978+2.20.637+5.40.263+3.30.487-1.30.806+3.00.52449.0%202+5.10.313
Octagon-7.60.134-8.40.079-5.00.314-2.90.552+0.30.951-1.80.709-6.40.246-2.00.674-5.10.31343.9%189
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 counted254
Win rate50.4%
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
Fence and open83.3%+32.90.1026 ·
Open65.0%+14.60.17320 ·
Half fence61.9%+11.50.27121 ·
Single wall60.0%+9.60.22135 ·
Octagon52.6%+2.20.83919 ·
Breakable full fence52.4%+2.00.84921 ·
Rectangle44.0%-6.40.50125 ·
Full fence42.1%-8.30.45319 ·
Low fence41.2%-9.20.14151 ·
Breakable half fence37.5%-12.90.11932 ·
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 11.57 on 9 df, p 0.238

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence42.1%19-10.30.516-19.80.210+4.60.745+0.90.944-17.90.208-41.20.078-22.90.152-1.90.900-10.50.516
Breakable full fence+10.30.51652.4%21-9.50.533+14.90.285+11.20.384-7.60.577-30.90.174-12.60.412+8.40.571-0.20.987
Half fence+19.80.210+9.50.53361.9%21+24.40.082+20.70.109+1.90.888-21.40.326-3.10.837+17.90.226+9.30.554
Breakable half fence-4.60.745-14.90.285-24.40.08237.5%32-3.70.739-22.50.066-45.80.038-27.50.053-6.50.620-15.10.291
Low fence-0.90.944-11.20.384-20.70.109+3.70.73941.2%51-18.80.086-42.10.050-23.80.071-2.80.815-11.40.391
Single wall+17.90.208+7.60.577-1.90.888+22.50.066+18.80.08660.0%35-23.30.273-5.00.714+16.00.221+7.40.601
Fence and open+41.20.078+30.90.174+21.40.326+45.80.038+42.10.050+23.30.27383.3%6+18.30.393+39.30.083+30.70.181
Open+22.90.152+12.60.412+3.10.837+27.50.053+23.80.071+5.00.714-18.30.39365.0%20+21.00.161+12.40.433
Rectangle+1.90.900-8.40.571-17.90.226+6.50.620+2.80.815-16.00.221-39.30.083-21.00.16144.0%25-8.60.570
Octagon+10.50.516+0.20.987-9.30.554+15.10.291+11.40.391-7.40.601-30.70.181-12.40.433+8.60.57052.6%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.