VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Pai

Jean vs Pai in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 50.1% of 4,327 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 counted4,327
Win rate50.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.2 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
Half fence56.3%+6.20.006435
Low fence54.5%+4.40.049444
Full fence53.4%+3.30.158414
Breakable full fence52.1%+2.00.397411
Octagon51.2%+1.10.608447
Open49.3%-0.80.736444
Breakable half fence47.4%-2.70.233439
Single wall46.4%-3.60.102448
Fence and open44.7%-5.40.096226
Rectangle44.3%-5.80.015404
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 24.69 on 9 df, p 0.003

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.4%414+1.30.706-2.90.389+6.00.080-1.10.742+7.00.041+8.70.036+4.10.235+9.10.009+2.10.528
Breakable full fence-1.30.70652.1%411-4.20.215+4.70.172-2.40.476+5.60.099+7.40.075+2.80.423+7.80.027+0.80.806
Half fence+2.90.389+4.20.21556.3%435+8.90.008+1.80.588+9.90.003+11.60.005+7.00.038+12.0<0.001+5.10.129
Breakable half fence-6.00.080-4.70.172-8.90.00847.4%439-7.10.034+0.90.776+2.70.510-1.90.563+3.10.371-3.90.252
Low fence+1.10.742+2.40.476-1.80.588+7.10.03454.5%444+8.10.016+9.80.016+5.20.122+10.20.003+3.30.328
Single wall-7.00.041-5.60.099-9.90.003-0.90.776-8.10.01646.4%448+1.70.669-2.90.387+2.10.535-4.80.151
Fence and open-8.70.036-7.40.075-11.60.005-2.70.510-9.80.016-1.70.66944.7%226-4.60.256+0.40.926-6.50.109
Open-4.10.235-2.80.423-7.00.038+1.90.563-5.20.122+2.90.387+4.60.25649.3%444+5.00.144-1.90.569
Rectangle-9.10.009-7.80.027-12.0<0.001-3.10.371-10.20.003-2.10.535-0.40.926-5.00.14444.3%404-6.90.044
Octagon-2.10.528-0.80.806-5.10.129+3.90.252-3.30.328+4.80.151+6.50.109+1.90.569+6.90.04451.2%447
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 counted2,147
Win rate51.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches10.4 pts
Survive correction1
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
Half fence61.4%+10.4<0.001223
Octagon55.1%+4.10.181234
Full fence55.1%+4.10.258178
Breakable full fence53.9%+2.90.365217
Low fence53.5%+2.50.458200
Open51.0%-0.00.990208
Single wall49.1%-1.90.550220
Breakable half fence45.2%-5.80.070217
Rectangle42.7%-8.30.012206
Fence and open41.0%-10.00.023122
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 27.51 on 9 df, p 0.001

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.1%178+1.10.821-6.40.198+9.90.050+1.60.762+6.00.236+14.10.017+4.10.422+12.30.016-0.10.988
Breakable full fence-1.10.82153.9%217-7.50.110+8.80.068+0.40.932+4.80.313+12.90.022+3.00.542+11.20.021-1.20.796
Half fence+6.40.198+7.50.11061.4%223+16.3<0.001+7.90.099+12.30.009+20.4<0.001+10.50.028+18.7<0.001+6.30.172
Breakable half fence-9.90.050-8.80.068-16.3<0.00145.2%217-8.30.089-3.90.411+4.20.457-5.80.232+2.40.613-10.00.034
Low fence-1.60.762-0.40.932-7.90.099+8.30.08953.5%200+4.40.367+12.50.029+2.50.608+10.80.030-1.60.734
Single wall-6.00.236-4.80.313-12.30.009+3.90.411-4.40.36749.1%220+8.10.150-1.90.699+6.40.187-6.00.198
Fence and open-14.10.017-12.90.022-20.4<0.001-4.20.457-12.50.029-8.10.15041.0%122-10.00.080-1.70.758-14.20.011
Open-4.10.422-3.00.542-10.50.028+5.80.232-2.50.608+1.90.699+10.00.08051.0%208+8.20.093-4.20.381
Rectangle-12.30.016-11.20.021-18.7<0.001-2.40.613-10.80.030-6.40.187+1.70.758-8.20.09342.7%206-12.40.009
Octagon+0.10.988+1.20.796-6.30.172+10.00.034+1.60.734+6.00.198+14.20.011+4.20.381+12.40.00955.1%234
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 counted2,060
Win rate49.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.3 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
Low fence54.4%+5.30.091226
Full fence51.8%+2.70.399224
Breakable full fence51.1%+1.90.577186
Half fence51.0%+1.90.577200
Fence and open50.0%+0.90.86294
Breakable half fence49.8%+0.60.847209
Octagon48.0%-1.10.740202
Open46.4%-2.80.386220
Rectangle45.1%-4.00.237193
Single wall44.6%-4.50.153222
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 7.66 on 9 df, p 0.569

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.8%224+0.70.886+0.80.872+2.00.674-2.60.575+7.20.129+1.80.771+5.40.253+6.70.172+3.80.438
Breakable full fence-0.70.88651.1%186+0.10.988+1.30.794-3.30.498+6.50.192+1.10.865+4.70.344+6.00.243+3.10.548
Half fence-0.80.872-0.10.98851.0%200+1.20.802-3.40.480+6.40.188+1.00.873+4.60.342+5.90.240+3.00.550
Breakable half fence-2.00.674-1.30.794-1.20.80249.8%209-4.70.331+5.20.283-0.20.969+3.40.481+4.70.348+1.70.724
Low fence+2.60.575+3.30.498+3.40.480+4.70.33154.4%226+9.80.037+4.40.470+8.10.089+9.30.056+6.40.186
Single wall-7.20.129-6.50.192-6.40.188-5.20.283-9.80.03744.6%222-5.40.378-1.80.709-0.50.921-3.40.480
Fence and open-1.80.771-1.10.865-1.00.873+0.20.969-4.40.470+5.40.37850.0%94+3.60.555+4.90.433+2.00.751
Open-5.40.253-4.70.344-4.60.342-3.40.481-8.10.089+1.80.709-3.60.55546.4%220+1.30.794-1.70.734
Rectangle-6.70.172-6.00.243-5.90.240-4.70.348-9.30.056+0.50.921-4.90.433-1.30.79445.1%193-2.90.558
Octagon-3.80.438-3.10.548-3.00.550-1.70.724-6.40.186+3.40.480-2.00.751+1.70.734+2.90.55848.0%202
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 counted120
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
Rectangle80.0%+30.00.1715 ·
Open68.8%+18.80.10716 ·
Low fence66.7%+16.70.12518 ·
Full fence58.3%+8.30.54312 ·
Half fence50.0%+0.01.00012 ·
Breakable half fence46.1%-3.90.76913 ·
Fence and open40.0%-10.00.50910 ·
Octagon27.3%-22.70.11411 ·
Breakable full fence25.0%-25.00.1438 ·
Single wall16.7%-33.30.0946 ·
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 13.79 on 9 df, p 0.130

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence58.3%12+33.30.142+8.30.682+12.20.543-8.30.643+41.70.094+18.30.392-10.40.569-21.70.394+31.10.133
Breakable full fence-33.30.14225.0%8-25.00.264-21.10.332-41.70.049+8.30.707-15.00.502-43.80.043-55.00.053-2.30.912
Half fence-8.30.682+25.00.26450.0%12+3.90.848-16.70.361+33.30.171+10.00.639-18.80.315-30.00.252+22.70.265
Breakable half fence-12.20.543+21.10.332-3.90.84846.1%13-20.50.253+29.50.216+6.20.768-22.60.219-33.90.196+18.90.341
Low fence+8.30.643+41.70.049+16.70.361+20.50.25366.7%18+50.00.033+26.70.172-2.10.897-13.30.567+39.40.039
Single wall-41.70.094-8.30.707-33.30.171-29.50.216-50.00.03316.7%6-23.30.330-52.10.029-63.30.036-10.60.622
Fence and open-18.30.392+15.00.502-10.00.639-6.20.768-26.70.172+23.30.33040.0%10-28.80.149-40.00.143+12.70.537
Open+10.40.569+43.80.043+18.80.315+22.60.219+2.10.897+52.10.029+28.80.14968.8%16-11.20.627+41.50.034
Rectangle+21.70.394+55.00.053+30.00.252+33.90.196+13.30.567+63.30.036+40.00.143+11.20.62780.0%5+52.70.049
Octagon-31.10.133+2.30.912-22.70.265-18.90.341-39.40.039+10.60.622-12.70.537-41.50.034-52.70.04927.3%11
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.