VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Sarah

Jean vs Sarah in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 50.8% of 4,561 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 counted4,561
Win rate50.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-1.5 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
Low fence51.6%+0.80.713492
Rectangle51.6%+0.80.723461
Half fence51.6%+0.80.742440
Fence and open51.3%+0.50.884228
Full fence51.2%+0.40.865449
Open51.2%+0.40.865449
Breakable full fence50.6%-0.30.901443
Breakable half fence50.3%-0.50.802487
Single wall50.2%-0.60.794420
Octagon49.4%-1.50.498468
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 0.95 on 9 df, p 1.000

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.2%449+0.70.844-0.40.913+0.90.779-0.40.902+1.00.771-0.10.982+0.01.000-0.40.903+1.90.572
Breakable full fence-0.70.84450.6%443-1.00.760+0.20.938-1.10.746+0.30.924-0.80.854-0.70.844-1.10.749+1.20.716
Half fence+0.40.913+1.00.76051.6%440+1.30.696-0.00.991+1.40.692+0.30.946+0.40.913-0.00.991+2.20.501
Breakable half fence-0.90.779-0.20.938-1.30.69650.3%487-1.30.680+0.10.983-1.00.802-0.90.779-1.30.685+0.90.769
Low fence+0.40.902+1.10.746+0.00.991+1.30.68051.6%492+1.40.676+0.30.938+0.40.902+0.01.000+2.30.483
Single wall-1.00.771-0.30.924-1.40.692-0.10.983-1.40.67650.2%420-1.10.793-1.00.771-1.40.680+0.90.794
Fence and open+0.10.982+0.80.854-0.30.946+1.00.802-0.30.938+1.10.79351.3%228+0.10.982-0.30.939+2.00.628
Open-0.01.000+0.70.844-0.40.913+0.90.779-0.40.902+1.00.771-0.10.98251.2%449-0.40.903+1.90.572
Rectangle+0.40.903+1.10.749+0.00.991+1.30.685-0.01.000+1.40.680+0.30.939+0.40.90351.6%461+2.30.489
Octagon-1.90.572-1.20.716-2.20.501-0.90.769-2.30.483-0.90.794-2.00.628-1.90.572-2.30.48949.4%468
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 counted2,072
Win rate53.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.7 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
Fence and open60.4%+6.70.158106
Half fence59.1%+5.40.093213
Full fence57.4%+3.70.229237
Breakable half fence54.6%+0.90.771227
Low fence54.0%+0.30.923198
Open53.5%-0.20.944215
Octagon51.5%-2.20.498204
Rectangle51.1%-2.70.444188
Single wall49.7%-4.00.252187
Breakable full fence48.1%-5.60.109185
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 10.27 on 9 df, p 0.329

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.4%237+9.30.058-1.80.704+2.80.550+3.30.484+7.70.117-3.00.603+3.90.405+6.30.194+5.90.214
Breakable full fence-9.30.05848.1%185-11.00.027-6.50.188-5.90.246-1.60.754-12.30.044-5.40.283-3.00.568-3.40.508
Half fence+1.80.704+11.00.02759.1%213+4.50.338+5.10.296+9.40.059-1.20.834+5.70.237+8.10.104+7.70.115
Breakable half fence-2.80.550+6.50.188-4.50.33854.6%227+0.60.904+4.90.321-5.80.324+1.10.810+3.60.469+3.20.512
Low fence-3.30.484+5.90.246-5.10.296-0.60.90454.0%198+4.30.398-6.30.289+0.60.910+3.00.558+2.60.606
Single wall-7.70.117+1.60.754-9.40.059-4.90.321-4.30.39849.7%187-10.70.079-3.80.452-1.30.797-1.70.731
Fence and open+3.00.603+12.30.044+1.20.834+5.80.324+6.30.289+10.70.07960.4%106+6.90.243+9.30.124+8.90.135
Open-3.90.405+5.40.283-5.70.237-1.10.810-0.60.910+3.80.452-6.90.24353.5%215+2.40.627+2.00.679
Rectangle-6.30.194+3.00.568-8.10.104-3.60.469-3.00.558+1.30.797-9.30.124-2.40.62751.1%188-0.40.936
Octagon-5.90.214+3.40.508-7.70.115-3.20.512-2.60.606+1.70.731-8.90.135-2.00.679+0.40.93651.5%204
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 counted2,399
Win rate48.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.8 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
Rectangle52.5%+4.00.165265
Breakable full fence52.2%+3.80.208245
Low fence50.2%+1.70.529289
Single wall50.0%+1.60.623224
Open49.1%+0.70.828228
Octagon48.4%-0.10.987248
Breakable half fence46.3%-2.10.488246
Full fence44.3%-4.20.208210
Fence and open43.8%-4.60.295121
Half fence43.6%-4.80.135220
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 8.70 on 9 df, p 0.466

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.3%210-8.00.090+0.70.892-2.00.660-5.90.194-5.70.233+0.50.932-4.80.311-8.20.077-4.10.381
Breakable full fence+8.00.09052.2%245+8.60.064+5.90.191+2.10.633+2.20.627+8.40.129+3.10.497-0.20.963+3.90.392
Half fence-0.70.892-8.60.06443.6%220-2.70.558-6.50.143-6.40.179-0.20.977-5.50.244-8.80.053-4.80.304
Breakable half fence+2.00.660-5.90.191+2.70.55846.3%246-3.80.377-3.70.428+2.50.646-2.80.545-6.10.167-2.00.649
Low fence+5.90.194-2.10.633+6.50.143+3.80.37750.2%289+0.20.969+6.40.239+1.10.813-2.30.592+1.80.680
Single wall+5.70.233-2.20.627+6.40.179+3.70.428-0.20.96950.0%224+6.20.271+0.90.852-2.50.589+1.60.726
Fence and open-0.50.932-8.40.129+0.20.977-2.50.646-6.40.239-6.20.27143.8%121-5.30.343-8.70.115-4.60.407
Open+4.80.311-3.10.497+5.50.244+2.80.545-1.10.813-0.90.852+5.30.34349.1%228-3.30.461+0.70.873
Rectangle+8.20.077+0.20.963+8.80.053+6.10.167+2.30.592+2.50.589+8.70.115+3.30.46152.5%265+4.10.357
Octagon+4.10.381-3.90.392+4.80.304+2.00.649-1.80.680-1.60.726+4.60.407-0.70.873-4.10.35748.4%248
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 counted90
Win rate48.9%
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
Half fence71.4%+22.50.2147 ·
Single wall66.7%+17.80.2619 ·
Breakable full fence53.9%+5.00.69913 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%+1.10.92814 ·
Full fence50.0%+1.10.9752 ·
Open50.0%+1.10.9556 ·
Low fence40.0%-8.90.6825 ·
Octagon37.5%-11.40.31516 ·
Rectangle37.5%-11.40.5008 ·
Fence and open0.0%-48.90.3251 ·
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 5.05 on 9 df, p 0.830

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%2-3.90.919-21.40.571+0.01.000+10.00.809-16.70.658+50.00.386+0.01.000+12.50.747+12.50.732
Breakable full fence+3.90.91953.9%13-17.60.444+3.90.842+13.80.599-12.80.548+53.90.299+3.90.876+16.40.466+16.40.379
Half fence+21.40.571+17.60.44471.4%7+21.40.350+31.40.276+4.80.838+71.40.168+21.40.429+33.90.189+33.90.134
Breakable half fence-0.01.000-3.90.842-21.40.35050.0%14+10.00.701-16.70.431+50.00.333+0.01.000+12.50.571+12.50.491
Low fence-10.00.809-13.80.599-31.40.276-10.00.70140.0%5-26.70.334+40.00.439-10.00.740+2.50.928+2.50.920
Single wall+16.70.658+12.80.548-4.80.838+16.70.431+26.70.33466.7%9+66.70.197+16.70.519+29.20.229+29.20.161
Fence and open-50.00.386-53.90.299-71.40.168-50.00.333-40.00.439-66.70.1970.0%1-50.00.350-37.50.453-37.50.446
Open-0.01.000-3.90.876-21.40.429-0.01.000+10.00.740-16.70.519+50.00.35050.0%6+12.50.640+12.50.595
Rectangle-12.50.747-16.40.466-33.90.189-12.50.571-2.50.928-29.20.229+37.50.453-12.50.64037.5%8+0.01.000
Octagon-12.50.732-16.40.379-33.90.134-12.50.491-2.50.920-29.20.161+37.50.446-12.50.595-0.01.00037.5%16
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.