VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Shun

Jean vs Shun in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 49.9% of 3,815 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 counted3,815
Win rate49.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.4 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
Low fence53.1%+3.10.178409
Full fence52.3%+2.40.352352
Octagon51.8%+1.90.427380
Fence and open50.8%+0.90.804193
Open50.3%+0.40.884372
Rectangle49.9%-0.00.987385
Half fence49.6%-0.30.892339
Breakable full fence49.1%-0.80.731375
Breakable half fence48.1%-1.80.431420
Single wall45.5%-4.40.077369
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 6.55 on 9 df, p 0.684

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.3%352+3.20.388+2.70.475+4.20.248-0.80.829+6.70.070+1.50.738+2.00.590+2.40.515+0.40.907
Breakable full fence-3.20.38849.1%375-0.50.896+1.00.784-4.00.264+3.50.334-1.70.699-1.20.742-0.80.825-2.80.446
Half fence-2.70.475+0.50.89649.6%339+1.50.689-3.50.341+4.00.284-1.20.787-0.70.850-0.30.933-2.30.541
Breakable half fence-4.20.248-1.00.784-1.50.68948.1%420-5.00.153+2.60.471-2.70.537-2.20.541-1.80.615-3.70.290
Low fence+0.80.829+4.00.264+3.50.341+5.00.15353.1%409+7.50.036+2.30.601+2.80.436+3.20.369+1.20.733
Single wall-6.70.070-3.50.334-4.00.284-2.60.471-7.50.03645.5%369-5.20.237-4.70.197-4.30.233-6.30.084
Fence and open-1.50.738+1.70.699+1.20.787+2.70.537-2.30.601+5.20.23750.8%193+0.50.909+0.90.837-1.10.810
Open-2.00.590+1.20.742+0.70.850+2.20.541-2.80.436+4.70.197-0.50.90950.3%372+0.40.913-1.60.666
Rectangle-2.40.515+0.80.825+0.30.933+1.80.615-3.20.369+4.30.233-0.90.837-0.40.91349.9%385-2.00.585
Octagon-0.40.907+2.80.446+2.30.541+3.70.290-1.20.733+6.30.084+1.10.810+1.60.666+2.00.58551.8%380
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 counted1,786
Win rate50.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.8 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
Low fence55.8%+5.80.084199
Full fence54.2%+4.20.275155
Half fence52.9%+2.90.475136
Fence and open52.8%+2.80.59191
Breakable full fence50.0%+0.01.000164
Open49.4%-0.60.874178
Rectangle49.4%-0.60.873174
Octagon48.2%-1.80.623164
Single wall47.9%-2.10.541192
Breakable half fence44.4%-5.60.075225
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 7.85 on 9 df, p 0.549

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.2%155+4.20.454+1.20.831+9.80.062-1.60.766+6.30.245+1.40.826+4.80.386+4.80.388+6.00.282
Breakable full fence-4.20.45450.0%164-2.90.612+5.60.278-5.80.272+2.10.695-2.80.674+0.60.917+0.60.916+1.80.740
Half fence-1.20.831+2.90.61252.9%136+8.50.117-2.80.608+5.00.370+0.20.977+3.50.538+3.50.539+4.80.411
Breakable half fence-9.80.062-5.60.278-8.50.11744.4%225-11.30.020-3.50.478-8.30.180-5.00.318-5.00.323-3.70.467
Low fence+1.60.766+5.80.272+2.80.608+11.30.02055.8%199+7.90.120+3.00.630+6.30.218+6.30.220+7.60.149
Single wall-6.30.245-2.10.695-5.00.370+3.50.478-7.90.12047.9%192-4.80.448-1.50.770-1.50.773-0.20.962
Fence and open-1.40.826+2.80.674-0.20.977+8.30.180-3.00.630+4.80.44852.8%91+3.30.608+3.30.608+4.60.484
Open-4.80.386-0.60.917-3.50.538+5.00.318-6.30.218+1.50.770-3.30.60849.4%178+0.00.998+1.30.815
Rectangle-4.80.388-0.60.916-3.50.539+5.00.323-6.30.220+1.50.773-3.30.608-0.00.99849.4%174+1.30.818
Octagon-6.00.282-1.80.740-4.80.411+3.70.467-7.60.149+0.20.962-4.60.484-1.30.815-1.30.81848.2%164
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 counted1,901
Win rate50.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.6 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
Octagon55.3%+5.30.110206
Breakable half fence52.2%+2.10.546180
Low fence52.0%+1.90.568202
Full fence51.4%+1.30.716185
Rectangle51.0%+0.90.780194
Open50.8%+0.70.835187
Fence and open50.5%+0.50.92995
Half fence47.4%-2.70.433192
Breakable full fence46.6%-3.50.312193
Single wall42.5%-7.60.041167
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 8.43 on 9 df, p 0.491

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.4%185+4.70.359+4.00.443-0.90.868-0.60.902+8.80.097+0.80.896+0.60.916+0.30.950-4.00.430
Breakable full fence-4.70.35946.6%193-0.80.881-5.60.281-5.30.288+4.10.433-3.90.534-4.20.416-4.40.387-8.70.082
Half fence-4.00.443+0.80.88147.4%192-4.80.352-4.60.363+4.90.354-3.10.618-3.40.507-3.60.475-7.90.113
Breakable half fence+0.90.868+5.60.281+4.80.35252.2%180+0.20.962+9.70.070+1.70.789+1.40.786+1.20.818-3.10.540
Low fence+0.60.902+5.30.288+4.60.363-0.20.96252.0%202+9.50.070+1.40.815+1.20.816+0.90.850-3.40.496
Single wall-8.80.097-4.10.433-4.90.354-9.70.070-9.50.07042.5%167-8.00.211-8.30.119-8.50.106-12.80.014
Fence and open-0.80.896+3.90.534+3.10.618-1.70.789-1.40.815+8.00.21150.5%95-0.30.965-0.50.936-4.80.436
Open-0.60.916+4.20.416+3.40.507-1.40.786-1.20.816+8.30.119+0.30.96550.8%187-0.20.964-4.50.368
Rectangle-0.30.950+4.40.387+3.60.475-1.20.818-0.90.850+8.50.106+0.50.936+0.20.96451.0%194-4.30.388
Octagon+4.00.430+8.70.082+7.90.113+3.10.540+3.40.496+12.80.014+4.80.436+4.50.368+4.30.38855.3%206
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 counted128
Win rate46.1%
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
Breakable full fence66.7%+20.60.05918 ·
Open57.1%+11.10.5467 ·
Breakable half fence53.3%+7.20.54915 ·
Single wall50.0%+3.90.79610 ·
Half fence45.5%-0.60.96511 ·
Full fence41.7%-4.40.74712 ·
Rectangle41.2%-4.90.66217 ·
Octagon40.0%-6.10.68710 ·
Fence and open28.6%-17.50.3397 ·
Low fence12.5%-33.60.0498 ·
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 8.70 on 9 df, p 0.466

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence41.7%12-25.00.176-3.80.855-11.70.547+29.20.163-8.30.696+13.10.568-15.50.515+0.50.979+1.70.937
Breakable full fence+25.00.17666.7%18+21.20.260+13.30.435+54.20.011+16.70.387+38.10.085+9.50.656+25.50.130+26.70.172
Half fence+3.80.855-21.20.26045.5%11-7.90.691+33.00.127-4.50.835+16.90.474-11.70.629+4.30.823+5.50.801
Breakable half fence+11.70.547-13.30.435+7.90.69153.3%15+40.80.056+3.30.870+24.80.277-3.80.867+12.20.492+13.30.513
Low fence-29.20.163-54.20.011-33.00.127-40.80.05612.5%8-37.50.094-16.10.438-44.60.067-28.70.152-27.50.196
Single wall+8.30.696-16.70.387+4.50.835-3.30.870+37.50.09450.0%10+21.40.377-7.10.772+8.80.656+10.00.653
Fence and open-13.10.568-38.10.085-16.90.474-24.80.277+16.10.438-21.40.37728.6%7-28.60.280-12.60.562-11.40.627
Open+15.50.515-9.50.656+11.70.629+3.80.867+44.60.067+7.10.772+28.60.28057.1%7+16.00.476+17.10.486
Rectangle-0.50.979-25.50.130-4.30.823-12.20.492+28.70.152-8.80.656+12.60.562-16.00.47641.2%17+1.20.952
Octagon-1.70.937-26.70.172-5.50.801-13.30.513+27.50.196-10.00.653+11.40.627-17.10.486-1.20.95240.0%10
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.