VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Vanessa

Jean vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 50.0% of 2,804 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 counted2,804
Win rate50.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.3 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
Octagon52.2%+2.10.435301
Single wall51.9%+1.90.526264
Half fence51.4%+1.40.623280
Breakable half fence51.1%+1.10.712274
Open50.4%+0.30.909278
Breakable full fence50.2%+0.10.960287
Low fence49.3%-0.70.797300
Rectangle48.3%-1.80.549259
Fence and open47.1%-2.90.513123
Full fence46.8%-3.30.237295
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 3.31 on 9 df, p 0.951

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.8%295-3.40.413-4.70.265-4.30.304-2.50.533-5.10.227-0.40.944-3.60.391-1.50.727-5.40.189
Breakable full fence+3.40.41350.2%287-1.30.765-0.90.827+0.80.839-1.70.687+3.00.575-0.20.965+1.90.655-2.00.630
Half fence+4.70.265+1.30.76551.4%280+0.30.937+2.10.614-0.50.914+4.30.429+1.10.801+3.20.463-0.70.860
Breakable half fence+4.30.304+0.90.827-0.30.93751.1%274+1.80.673-0.80.853+3.90.468+0.70.863+2.80.513-1.10.799
Low fence+2.50.533-0.80.839-2.10.614-1.80.67349.3%300-2.60.544+2.20.684-1.00.805+1.10.801-2.80.488
Single wall+5.10.227+1.70.687+0.50.914+0.80.853+2.60.54451.9%264+4.70.385+1.50.721+3.60.406-0.30.950
Fence and open+0.40.944-3.00.575-4.30.429-3.90.468-2.20.684-4.70.38547.1%123-3.20.554-1.10.839-5.00.350
Open+3.60.391+0.20.965-1.10.801-0.70.863+1.00.805-1.50.721+3.20.55450.4%278+2.10.627-1.80.665
Rectangle+1.50.727-1.90.655-3.20.463-2.80.513-1.10.801-3.60.406+1.10.839-2.10.62748.3%259-3.90.358
Octagon+5.40.189+2.00.630+0.70.860+1.10.799+2.80.488+0.30.950+5.00.350+1.80.665+3.90.35852.2%301
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 counted970
Win rate49.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-7.2 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
Single wall54.2%+4.70.33496
Fence and open53.2%+3.70.60247 ·
Open52.0%+2.50.597102
Low fence51.5%+2.00.672103
Breakable full fence51.0%+1.50.749100
Octagon49.5%+0.00.993105
Half fence49.5%-0.00.99895
Full fence48.5%-1.00.837101
Breakable half fence48.3%-1.20.81789
Rectangle42.3%-7.20.13497
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 3.66 on 9 df, p 0.932

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.5%101-2.50.725-1.00.893+0.20.978-3.00.674-5.70.428-4.70.596-3.50.623+6.20.378-1.00.885
Breakable full fence+2.50.72551.0%100+1.50.831+2.70.712-0.50.948-3.20.657-2.20.804-1.00.891+8.70.219+1.50.833
Half fence+1.00.893-1.50.83149.5%95+1.20.875-2.00.780-4.70.516-3.70.677-2.50.727+7.20.316-0.10.994
Breakable half fence-0.20.978-2.70.712-1.20.87548.3%89-3.10.664-5.90.426-4.90.589-3.60.615+6.00.408-1.20.867
Low fence+3.00.674+0.50.948+2.00.780+3.10.66451.5%103-2.70.702-1.70.844-0.50.942+9.20.193+1.90.780
Single wall+5.70.428+3.20.657+4.70.516+5.90.426+2.70.70254.2%96+1.00.913+2.20.756+11.90.098+4.70.511
Fence and open+4.70.596+2.20.804+3.70.677+4.90.589+1.70.844-1.00.91353.2%47+1.20.889+10.90.217+3.70.676
Open+3.50.623+1.00.891+2.50.727+3.60.615+0.50.942-2.20.756-1.20.88952.0%102+9.70.171+2.40.726
Rectangle-6.20.378-8.70.219-7.20.316-6.00.408-9.20.193-11.90.098-10.90.217-9.70.17142.3%97-7.20.301
Octagon+1.00.885-1.50.833+0.10.994+1.20.867-1.90.780-4.70.511-3.70.676-2.40.726+7.20.30149.5%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: 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 counted1,658
Win rate49.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.6 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
Octagon53.1%+3.60.319175
Breakable half fence51.8%+2.20.544164
Single wall51.0%+1.40.716155
Half fence50.6%+1.00.781162
Rectangle50.0%+0.40.915146
Open49.0%-0.50.888157
Breakable full fence48.2%-1.40.707166
Low fence46.7%-2.90.408180
Full fence46.1%-3.50.321178
Fence and open42.7%-6.90.22175 ·
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 4.41 on 9 df, p 0.882

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.1%178-2.10.693-4.50.402-5.80.287-0.60.909-4.90.372+3.40.620-3.00.586-3.90.481-7.10.184
Breakable full fence+2.10.69348.2%166-2.40.661-3.60.509+1.50.776-2.80.619+5.50.426-0.80.878-1.80.750-5.00.361
Half fence+4.50.402+2.40.66150.6%162-1.20.827+4.00.465-0.30.950+8.00.255+1.60.779+0.60.914-2.50.643
Breakable half fence+5.80.287+3.60.509+1.20.82751.8%164+5.20.339+0.90.878+9.20.189+2.80.618+1.80.748-1.30.809
Low fence+0.60.909-1.50.776-4.00.465-5.20.33946.7%180-4.30.432+4.00.559-2.40.663-3.30.549-6.50.222
Single wall+4.90.372+2.80.619+0.30.950-0.90.878+4.30.43251.0%155+8.30.238+1.90.734+1.00.867-2.20.693
Fence and open-3.40.620-5.50.426-8.00.255-9.20.189-4.00.559-8.30.23842.7%75-6.40.363-7.30.301-10.50.129
Open+3.00.586+0.80.878-1.60.779-2.80.618+2.40.663-1.90.734+6.40.36349.0%157-1.00.868-4.10.456
Rectangle+3.90.481+1.80.750-0.60.914-1.80.748+3.30.549-1.00.867+7.30.301+1.00.86850.0%146-3.10.575
Octagon+7.10.184+5.00.361+2.50.643+1.30.809+6.50.222+2.20.693+10.50.129+4.10.456+3.10.57553.1%175
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 counted176
Win rate57.4%
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 open100.0%+42.60.3871 ·
Rectangle68.8%+11.40.33516 ·
Half fence65.2%+7.80.41523 ·
Low fence64.7%+7.30.52117 ·
Breakable full fence61.9%+4.50.65521 ·
Breakable half fence57.1%-0.20.98121 ·
Octagon57.1%-0.20.98121 ·
Open52.6%-4.80.65719 ·
Single wall46.1%-11.20.39513 ·
Full fence43.8%-13.60.24716 ·
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 4.74 on 9 df, p 0.856

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence43.8%16-18.10.272-21.50.184-13.40.419-21.00.227-2.40.897-56.20.274-8.90.600-25.00.154-13.40.419
Breakable full fence+18.10.27261.9%21-3.30.820+4.80.753-2.80.859+15.80.369-38.10.439+9.30.554-6.80.666+4.80.753
Half fence+21.50.184+3.30.82065.2%23+8.10.583+0.50.973+19.10.265-34.80.470+12.60.408-3.50.818+8.10.583
Breakable half fence+13.40.419-4.80.753-8.10.58357.1%21-7.60.635+11.00.533-42.90.394+4.50.775-11.60.471+0.01.000
Low fence+21.00.227+2.80.859-0.50.973+7.60.63564.7%17+18.60.310-35.30.467+12.10.463-4.00.805+7.60.635
Single wall+2.40.897-15.80.369-19.10.265-11.00.533-18.60.31046.1%13-53.90.299-6.50.719-22.60.219-11.00.533
Fence and open+56.20.274+38.10.439+34.80.470+42.90.394+35.30.467+53.90.299100.0%1+47.40.353+31.20.506+42.90.394
Open+8.90.600-9.30.554-12.60.408-4.50.775-12.10.463+6.50.719-47.40.35352.6%19-16.10.332-4.50.775
Rectangle+25.00.154+6.80.666+3.50.818+11.60.471+4.00.805+22.60.219-31.20.506+16.10.33268.8%16+11.60.471
Octagon+13.40.419-4.80.753-8.10.583-0.01.000-7.60.635+11.00.533-42.90.394+4.50.775-11.60.47157.1%21
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.