VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Wolf

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted2,625
Win rate53.6%
Widest swing-7.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence60.3%+6.70.022262
Single wall57.3%+3.70.225248
Breakable half fence57.2%+3.60.210271
Half fence54.9%+1.30.661255
Rectangle54.0%+0.50.877259
Breakable full fence52.4%-1.20.646298
Low fence52.0%-1.60.584271
Octagon51.9%-1.70.577239
Fence and open47.9%-5.70.161140
Open45.8%-7.80.009249
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
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 16.39 on 9 df, p 0.059

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.3%262+8.00.058+5.40.214+3.10.466+8.30.054+3.00.485+12.40.017+14.50.001+6.30.149+8.40.058
Breakable full fence-8.00.05852.4%298-2.50.548-4.80.246+0.30.939-4.90.251+4.50.381+6.60.126-1.70.688+0.50.914
Half fence-5.40.214+2.50.54854.9%255-2.30.596+2.90.509-2.40.595+7.00.180+9.10.041+0.80.847+3.00.501
Breakable half fence-3.10.466+4.80.246+2.30.59657.2%271+5.20.227-0.10.989+9.30.072+11.40.009+3.10.467+5.30.229
Low fence-8.30.054-0.30.939-2.90.509-5.20.22752.0%271-5.20.232+4.20.423+6.20.155-2.00.641+0.10.974
Single wall-3.00.485+4.90.251+2.40.595+0.10.989+5.20.23257.3%248+9.40.074+11.50.010+3.20.468+5.40.234
Fence and open-12.40.017-4.50.381-7.00.180-9.30.072-4.20.423-9.40.07447.9%140+2.10.694-6.20.237-4.00.449
Open-14.50.001-6.60.126-9.10.041-11.40.009-6.20.155-11.50.010-2.10.69445.8%249-8.30.062-6.10.178
Rectangle-6.30.149+1.70.688-0.80.847-3.10.467+2.00.641-3.20.468+6.20.237+8.30.06254.0%259+2.20.628
Octagon-8.40.058-0.50.914-3.00.501-5.30.229-0.10.974-5.40.234+4.00.449+6.10.178-2.20.62851.9%239
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
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 counted2,522
Win rate53.8%
Widest swing-7.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence60.7%+6.90.019257
Single wall58.4%+4.60.132238
Breakable half fence57.4%+3.60.210263
Half fence55.2%+1.40.632250
Rectangle54.2%+0.40.888238
Octagon52.2%-1.60.611230
Breakable full fence51.9%-1.80.509285
Low fence51.7%-2.00.485261
Fence and open47.8%-6.00.151136
Open46.0%-7.80.012237
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
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 17.43 on 9 df, p 0.042

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.7%257+8.80.040+5.50.210+3.30.446+9.00.040+2.30.603+12.90.014+14.70.001+6.50.144+8.50.058
Breakable full fence-8.80.04051.9%285-3.30.449-5.50.198+0.20.962-6.50.138+4.10.427+5.90.177-2.30.604-0.20.956
Half fence-5.50.210+3.30.44955.2%250-2.20.613+3.50.431-3.20.475+7.40.164+9.20.042+1.00.825+3.00.507
Breakable half fence-3.30.446+5.50.198+2.20.61357.4%263+5.70.191-1.00.823+9.60.068+11.40.011+3.20.470+5.20.243
Low fence-9.00.040-0.20.962-3.50.431-5.70.19151.7%261-6.70.134+3.90.457+5.70.201-2.50.580-0.50.921
Single wall-2.30.603+6.50.138+3.20.475+1.00.823+6.70.13458.4%238+10.60.047+12.40.007+4.20.355+6.20.175
Fence and open-12.90.014-4.10.427-7.40.164-9.60.068-3.90.457-10.60.04747.8%136+1.80.737-6.40.233-4.40.418
Open-14.70.001-5.90.177-9.20.042-11.40.011-5.70.201-12.40.007-1.80.73746.0%237-8.20.074-6.20.182
Rectangle-6.50.144+2.30.604-1.00.825-3.20.470+2.50.580-4.20.355+6.40.233+8.20.07454.2%238+2.00.660
Octagon-8.50.058+0.20.956-3.00.507-5.20.243+0.50.921-6.20.175+4.40.418+6.20.182-2.00.66052.2%230
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
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 counted103
Win rate49.5%
Widest swing-19.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jean's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable full fence61.5%+12.00.35413 ·
Low fence60.0%+10.50.48510 ·
Rectangle52.4%+2.90.76821 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%+0.50.9778 ·
Fence and open50.0%+0.50.9844 ·
Octagon44.4%-5.10.7509 ·
Open41.7%-7.80.56312 ·
Full fence40.0%-9.50.6635 ·
Half fence40.0%-9.50.6635 ·
Single wall30.0%-19.50.19410 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
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 3.49 on 9 df, p 0.941

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence40.0%5-21.50.410+0.01.000-10.00.725-20.00.464+10.00.699-10.00.764-1.70.949-12.40.619-4.40.872
Breakable full fence+21.50.41061.5%13+21.50.410+11.50.604+1.50.940+31.50.133+11.50.682+19.90.320+9.20.601+17.10.429
Half fence-0.01.000-21.50.41040.0%5-10.00.725-20.00.464+10.00.699-10.00.764-1.70.949-12.40.619-4.40.872
Breakable half fence+10.00.725-11.50.604+10.00.72550.0%8-10.00.671+20.00.387+0.01.000+8.30.714-2.40.909+5.60.819
Low fence+20.00.464-1.50.940+20.00.464+10.00.67160.0%10+30.00.178+10.00.733+18.30.392+7.60.690+15.60.498
Single wall-10.00.699-31.50.133-10.00.699-20.00.387-30.00.17830.0%10-20.00.480-11.70.571-22.40.242-14.40.515
Fence and open+10.00.764-11.50.682+10.00.764-0.01.000-10.00.733+20.00.48050.0%4+8.30.771-2.40.930+5.60.853
Open+1.70.949-19.90.320+1.70.949-8.30.714-18.30.392+11.70.571-8.30.77141.7%12-10.70.554-2.80.899
Rectangle+12.40.619-9.20.601+12.40.619+2.40.909-7.60.690+22.40.242+2.40.930+10.70.55452.4%21+7.90.690
Octagon+4.40.872-17.10.429+4.40.872-5.60.819-15.60.498+14.40.515-5.60.853+2.80.899-7.90.69044.4%9
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
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.