VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Taka

Jean vs Taka in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 51.6% of 1,275 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 9 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,275
Win rate51.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-10.2 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 fence58.5%+6.90.068152
Open57.3%+5.70.145143
Fence and open55.6%+4.00.55354 ·
Octagon55.2%+3.60.437105
Full fence55.1%+3.50.428118
Low fence50.9%-0.70.886106
Breakable half fence49.7%-1.90.617145
Breakable full fence48.7%-2.90.441156
Single wall45.7%-5.90.207105
Rectangle41.4%-10.20.011140
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 14.31 on 9 df, p 0.112

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.1%118+6.40.296-3.50.568+5.40.381+4.10.535+9.40.162-0.50.954-2.30.714+13.70.029-0.20.982
Breakable full fence-6.40.29648.7%156-9.80.084-0.90.871-2.20.724+3.00.634-6.80.386-8.60.136+7.30.208-6.50.301
Half fence+3.50.568+9.80.08458.5%152+8.90.124+7.60.226+12.80.043+3.00.702+1.20.833+17.10.003+3.30.598
Breakable half fence-5.40.381+0.90.871-8.90.12449.7%145-1.30.840+4.00.538-5.90.459-7.70.191+8.20.163-5.60.383
Low fence-4.10.535+2.20.724-7.60.226+1.30.84050.9%106+5.20.447-4.60.581-6.40.316+9.50.138-4.30.532
Single wall-9.40.162-3.00.634-12.80.043-4.00.538-5.20.44745.7%105-9.80.240-11.60.070+4.30.503-9.50.168
Fence and open+0.50.954+6.80.386-3.00.702+5.90.459+4.60.581+9.80.24055.6%54-1.80.821+14.10.076+0.30.970
Open+2.30.714+8.60.136-1.20.833+7.70.191+6.40.316+11.60.070+1.80.82157.3%143+15.90.007+2.10.741
Rectangle-13.70.029-7.30.208-17.10.003-8.20.163-9.50.138-4.30.503-14.10.076-15.90.00741.4%140-13.80.032
Octagon+0.20.982+6.50.301-3.30.598+5.60.383+4.30.532+9.50.168-0.30.970-2.10.741+13.80.03255.2%105
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 counted457
Win rate48.1%
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
Half fence61.9%+13.80.01963 ·
Fence and open60.0%+11.90.27820 ·
Open57.9%+9.80.11557 ·
Full fence54.8%+6.60.36742 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%+1.90.78050 ·
Breakable half fence47.2%-1.00.88053 ·
Low fence41.0%-7.10.35239 ·
Octagon41.0%-7.10.35239 ·
Rectangle32.6%-15.50.02249 ·
Single wall30.6%-17.60.02836 ·
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: 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 19.65 on 9 df, p 0.020

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.8%42+4.80.649-7.10.466+7.60.462+13.70.216+24.20.032-5.20.697-3.10.756+22.10.034+13.70.216
Breakable full fence-4.80.64950.0%50-11.90.205+2.80.774+9.00.399+19.40.071-10.00.449-7.90.413+17.40.080+9.00.399
Half fence+7.10.466+11.90.20561.9%63+14.70.112+20.90.040+31.30.003+1.90.879+4.00.654+29.20.002+20.90.040
Breakable half fence-7.60.462-2.80.774-14.70.11247.2%53+6.10.558+16.60.117-12.80.328-10.70.260+14.50.135+6.10.558
Low fence-13.70.216-9.00.399-20.90.040-6.10.55841.0%39+10.50.345-19.00.167-16.90.104+8.40.417+0.01.000
Single wall-24.20.032-19.40.071-31.30.003-16.60.117-10.50.34530.6%36-29.40.032-27.30.010-2.10.837-10.50.345
Fence and open+5.20.697+10.00.449-1.90.879+12.80.328+19.00.167+29.40.03260.0%20+2.10.869+27.40.036+19.00.167
Open+3.10.756+7.90.413-4.00.654+10.70.260+16.90.104+27.30.010-2.10.86957.9%57+25.20.009+16.90.104
Rectangle-22.10.034-17.40.080-29.20.002-14.50.135-8.40.417+2.10.837-27.40.036-25.20.00932.6%49-8.40.417
Octagon-13.70.216-9.00.399-20.90.040-6.10.558-0.01.000+10.50.345-19.00.167-16.90.104+8.40.41741.0%39
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 counted711
Win rate52.0%
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
Octagon62.9%+10.90.07362 ·
Half fence57.5%+5.50.29980
Low fence54.9%+2.90.67151 ·
Full fence54.3%+2.20.69270 ·
Fence and open52.9%+0.90.91434 ·
Single wall51.6%-0.40.94462 ·
Open51.3%-0.70.89476 ·
Breakable full fence48.7%-3.30.53478 ·
Breakable half fence46.1%-5.90.27078 ·
Rectangle44.4%-7.60.14681
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 7.53 on 9 df, p 0.582

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.3%70+5.60.499-3.20.692+8.10.323-0.60.946+2.70.759+1.40.897+3.00.720+9.80.228-8.60.316
Breakable full fence-5.60.49948.7%78-8.80.269+2.60.748-6.20.492-2.90.734-4.20.681-2.60.747+4.30.589-14.20.094
Half fence+3.20.692+8.80.26957.5%80+11.30.154+2.60.770+5.90.484+4.60.654+6.20.438+13.10.098-5.40.515
Breakable half fence-8.10.323-2.60.748-11.30.15446.1%78-8.80.331-5.50.521-6.80.509-5.20.522+1.70.829-16.80.048
Low fence+0.60.946+6.20.492-2.60.770+8.80.33154.9%51+3.30.727+2.00.859+3.60.691+10.50.242-8.00.389
Single wall-2.70.759+2.90.734-5.90.484+5.50.521-3.30.72751.6%62-1.30.901+0.30.972+7.20.395-11.30.204
Fence and open-1.40.897+4.20.681-4.60.654+6.80.509-2.00.859+1.30.90152.9%34+1.60.875+8.50.405-10.00.342
Open-3.00.720+2.60.747-6.20.438+5.20.522-3.60.691-0.30.972-1.60.87551.3%76+6.90.389-11.60.172
Rectangle-9.80.228-4.30.589-13.10.098-1.70.829-10.50.242-7.20.395-8.50.405-6.90.38944.4%81-18.50.028
Octagon+8.60.316+14.20.094+5.40.515+16.80.048+8.00.389+11.30.204+10.00.342+11.60.172+18.50.02862.9%62
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 counted107
Win rate63.5%
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
Open100.0%+36.50.01210 ·
Breakable half fence78.6%+15.00.21014 ·
Octagon75.0%+11.40.6284 ·
Single wall71.4%+7.90.6547 ·
Full fence66.7%+3.10.8706 ·
Low fence62.5%-1.10.92516 ·
Rectangle60.0%-3.50.80610 ·
Breakable full fence46.4%-17.10.02828 ·
Half fence44.4%-19.10.2139 ·
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 12.55 on 8 df, p 0.128

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallOpenRectOct
Full fence66.7%6+20.20.368+22.20.398-11.90.573+4.20.856-4.80.853-33.30.051+6.70.790-8.30.778
Breakable full fence-20.20.36846.4%28+2.00.917-32.10.047-16.10.305-25.00.237-53.60.003-13.60.461-28.60.285
Half fence-22.20.398-2.00.91744.4%9-34.10.094-18.10.383-27.00.280-55.60.006-15.60.498-30.60.308
Breakable half fence+11.90.573+32.10.047+34.10.09478.6%14+16.10.338+7.10.717-21.40.118+18.60.324+3.60.880
Low fence-4.20.856+16.10.305+18.10.383-16.10.33862.5%16-8.90.679-37.50.027+2.50.899-12.50.639
Single wall+4.80.853+25.00.237+27.00.280-7.10.717+8.90.67971.4%7-28.60.072+11.40.627-3.60.898
Open+33.30.051+53.60.003+55.60.006+21.40.118+37.50.027+28.60.072100.0%10+40.00.025+25.00.101
Rectangle-6.70.790+13.60.461+15.60.498-18.60.324-2.50.899-11.40.627-40.00.02560.0%10-15.00.597
Octagon+8.30.778+28.60.285+30.60.308-3.60.880+12.50.639+3.60.898-25.00.101+15.00.59775.0%4
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.