VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jean vs Wolf

Jean vs Wolf in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jean wins 54.1% of 5,815 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 counted5,815
Win rate54.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.1 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
Breakable half fence57.2%+3.10.101624
Full fence57.2%+3.00.126565
Breakable full fence55.5%+1.40.442661
Half fence54.7%+0.60.764596
Single wall53.9%-0.20.916538
Rectangle53.4%-0.70.726530
Low fence52.8%-1.30.495619
Octagon51.5%-2.60.218518
Open50.3%-3.80.054582
Fence and open50.0%-4.10.156280
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 12.21 on 9 df, p 0.202

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence57.2%565+1.60.562+2.50.397-0.00.988+4.30.134+3.30.275+7.20.049+6.80.020+3.80.210+5.60.063
Breakable full fence-1.60.56255.5%661+0.80.769-1.70.542+2.70.334+1.60.575+5.50.120+5.20.068+2.10.464+4.00.174
Half fence-2.50.397-0.80.76954.7%596-2.50.377+1.90.513+0.80.789+4.70.194+4.40.135+1.30.662+3.20.293
Breakable half fence+0.00.988+1.70.542+2.50.37757.2%624+4.40.120+3.30.258+7.20.044+6.90.017+3.80.194+5.70.055
Low fence-4.30.134-2.70.334-1.90.513-4.40.12052.8%619-1.10.714+2.80.432+2.50.389-0.60.847+1.30.666
Single wall-3.30.275-1.60.575-0.80.789-3.30.258+1.10.71453.9%538+3.90.289+3.60.234+0.50.868+2.40.443
Fence and open-7.20.049-5.50.120-4.70.194-7.20.044-2.80.432-3.90.28950.0%280-0.30.925-3.40.357-1.50.677
Open-6.80.020-5.20.068-4.40.135-6.90.017-2.50.389-3.60.234+0.30.92550.3%582-3.10.309-1.20.691
Rectangle-3.80.210-2.10.464-1.30.662-3.80.194+0.60.847-0.50.868+3.40.357+3.10.30953.4%530+1.90.548
Octagon-5.60.063-4.00.174-3.20.293-5.70.055-1.30.666-2.40.443+1.50.677+1.20.691-1.90.54851.5%518
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 counted2,721
Win rate54.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.8 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
Breakable full fence59.0%+4.50.096307
Breakable half fence56.6%+2.10.424309
Full fence56.0%+1.50.605257
Low fence54.5%-0.00.986303
Rectangle53.8%-0.70.819249
Half fence53.6%-0.90.731295
Open53.1%-1.40.620275
Single wall50.2%-4.30.167235
Fence and open49.6%-4.90.263123
Octagon48.7%-5.80.067224
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 9.36 on 9 df, p 0.405

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.0%257-2.90.484+2.50.561-0.60.885+1.60.709+5.80.196+6.40.239+2.90.496+2.20.616+7.40.106
Breakable full fence+2.90.48459.0%307+5.40.182+2.30.559+4.50.262+8.80.042+9.40.077+5.90.154+5.10.224+10.30.019
Half fence-2.50.561-5.40.18253.6%295-3.10.448-0.90.826+3.40.444+4.00.459+0.50.911-0.30.952+4.90.269
Breakable half fence+0.60.885-2.30.559+3.10.44856.6%309+2.20.588+6.40.137+7.00.185+3.50.390+2.80.505+8.00.069
Low fence-1.60.709-4.50.262+0.90.826-2.20.58854.5%303+4.20.328+4.90.362+1.40.742+0.60.881+5.80.188
Single wall-5.80.196-8.80.042-3.40.444-6.40.137-4.20.32850.2%235+0.60.911-2.90.517-3.60.428+1.60.740
Fence and open-6.40.239-9.40.077-4.00.459-7.00.185-4.90.362-0.60.91149.6%123-3.50.519-4.20.443+0.90.868
Open-2.90.496-5.90.154-0.50.911-3.50.390-1.40.742+2.90.517+3.50.51953.1%275-0.70.868+4.40.325
Rectangle-2.20.616-5.10.224+0.30.952-2.80.505-0.60.881+3.60.428+4.20.443+0.70.86853.8%249+5.20.263
Octagon-7.40.106-10.30.019-4.90.269-8.00.069-5.80.188-1.60.740-0.90.868-4.40.325-5.20.26348.7%224
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 counted2,980
Win rate53.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.8 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
Full fence58.4%+4.50.096303
Breakable half fence57.9%+4.00.140304
Single wall57.7%+3.80.171293
Half fence55.8%+1.90.494294
Octagon54.4%+0.50.852283
Rectangle53.1%-0.80.782260
Breakable full fence52.1%-1.80.471340
Low fence51.0%-2.90.281306
Fence and open50.0%-3.90.326150
Open48.1%-5.80.037295
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 13.01 on 9 df, p 0.162

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence58.4%303+6.40.106+2.60.516+0.50.896+7.40.065+0.70.855+8.40.090+10.30.012+5.30.203+4.00.329
Breakable full fence-6.40.10652.1%340-3.70.348-5.80.137+1.10.784-5.60.157+2.10.674+3.90.324-1.00.805-2.40.557
Half fence-2.60.516+3.70.34855.8%294-2.10.602+4.80.239-1.90.643+5.80.248+7.60.063+2.70.523+1.40.742
Breakable half fence-0.50.896+5.80.137+2.10.60257.9%304+6.90.086+0.20.957+7.90.112+9.80.017+4.80.251+3.50.396
Low fence-7.40.065-1.10.784-4.80.239-6.90.08651.0%306-6.70.100+1.00.844+2.80.486-2.10.619-3.40.404
Single wall-0.70.855+5.60.157+1.90.643-0.20.957+6.70.10057.7%293+7.70.124+9.50.020+4.60.277+3.30.430
Fence and open-8.40.090-2.10.674-5.80.248-7.90.112-1.00.844-7.70.12450.0%150+1.90.710-3.10.548-4.40.381
Open-10.30.012-3.90.324-7.60.063-9.80.017-2.80.486-9.50.020-1.90.71048.1%295-4.90.245-6.30.131
Rectangle-5.30.203+1.00.805-2.70.523-4.80.251+2.10.619-4.60.277+3.10.548+4.90.24553.1%260-1.30.754
Octagon-4.00.329+2.40.557-1.40.742-3.50.396+3.40.404-3.30.430+4.40.381+6.30.131+1.30.75454.4%283
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 counted114
Win rate50.9%
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
Breakable full fence64.3%+13.40.28414 ·
Low fence60.0%+9.10.54610 ·
Fence and open57.1%+6.30.7327 ·
Half fence57.1%+6.30.7327 ·
Breakable half fence54.5%+3.70.79811 ·
Rectangle52.4%+1.50.87921 ·
Open41.7%-9.20.50012 ·
Full fence40.0%-10.90.6195 ·
Octagon36.4%-14.50.31111 ·
Single wall30.0%-20.90.16710 ·
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 4.92 on 9 df, p 0.841

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence40.0%5-24.30.345-17.10.558-14.60.590-20.00.464+10.00.699-17.10.558-1.70.949-12.40.619+3.60.889
Breakable full fence+24.30.34564.3%14+7.20.751+9.70.622+4.30.831+34.30.098+7.20.751+22.60.249+11.90.486+27.90.165
Half fence+17.10.558-7.20.75157.1%7+2.60.914-2.90.906+27.10.263+0.01.000+15.50.515+4.80.827+20.80.387
Breakable half fence+14.60.590-9.70.622-2.60.91454.5%11-5.50.801+24.60.256-2.60.914+12.90.537+2.20.907+18.20.392
Low fence+20.00.464-4.30.831+2.90.906+5.50.80160.0%10+30.00.178+2.90.906+18.30.392+7.60.690+23.60.279
Single wall-10.00.699-34.30.098-27.10.263-24.60.256-30.00.17830.0%10-27.10.263-11.70.571-22.40.242-6.40.757
Fence and open+17.10.558-7.20.751-0.01.000+2.60.914-2.90.906+27.10.26357.1%7+15.50.515+4.80.827+20.80.387
Open+1.70.949-22.60.249-15.50.515-12.90.537-18.30.392+11.70.571-15.50.51541.7%12-10.70.554+5.30.795
Rectangle+12.40.619-11.90.486-4.80.827-2.20.907-7.60.690+22.40.242-4.80.827+10.70.55452.4%21+16.00.388
Octagon-3.60.889-27.90.165-20.80.387-18.20.392-23.60.279+6.40.757-20.80.387-5.30.795-16.00.38836.4%11
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.