VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jeffry vs Kage

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted2,856
Win rate48.7%
Widest swing6.2 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence54.9%+6.20.033264
Octagon50.2%+1.50.584299
Half fence50.0%+1.30.642276
Rectangle49.0%+0.30.920286
Open47.9%-0.80.767305
Fence and open47.7%-1.00.814128
Breakable half fence46.7%-2.00.466302
Breakable full fence46.4%-2.20.430280
Full fence46.3%-2.40.383294
Single wall45.5%-3.20.276266
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

Jeffry's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.48 on 9 df, p 0.587

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.3%294-0.20.967-3.70.372-0.40.916-8.70.041+0.80.855-1.40.791-1.60.693-2.70.516-3.90.341
Breakable full fence+0.20.96746.4%280-3.60.399-0.30.950-8.50.048+0.90.826-1.20.818-1.40.727-2.50.548-3.70.368
Half fence+3.70.372+3.60.39950.0%276+3.30.426-4.90.252+4.50.293+2.30.661+2.10.608+1.10.804-0.20.968
Breakable half fence+0.40.916+0.30.950-3.30.42646.7%302-8.20.051+1.20.775-1.00.854-1.20.771-2.30.583-3.50.394
Low fence+8.70.041+8.50.048+4.90.252+8.20.05154.9%264+9.40.030+7.30.177+7.00.093+6.00.161+4.80.259
Single wall-0.80.855-0.90.826-4.50.293-1.20.775-9.40.03045.5%266-2.20.686-2.40.570-3.50.416-4.70.267
Fence and open+1.40.791+1.20.818-2.30.661+1.00.854-7.30.177+2.20.68647.7%128-0.20.968-1.30.808-2.50.634
Open+1.60.693+1.40.727-2.10.608+1.20.771-7.00.093+2.40.570+0.20.96847.9%305-1.10.792-2.30.572
Rectangle+2.70.516+2.50.548-1.10.804+2.30.583-6.00.161+3.50.416+1.30.808+1.10.79249.0%286-1.20.769
Octagon+3.90.341+3.70.368+0.20.968+3.50.394-4.80.259+4.70.267+2.50.634+2.30.572+1.20.76950.2%299
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 counted2,569
Win rate48.8%
Widest swing5.6 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence54.4%+5.60.068239
Octagon50.2%+1.40.621275
Half fence50.0%+1.20.690240
Rectangle49.6%+0.80.771264
Breakable full fence48.4%-0.30.907254
Full fence47.0%-1.80.543268
Breakable half fence46.3%-2.50.386268
Open46.2%-2.50.369279
Single wall45.9%-2.90.358231
Fence and open45.7%-3.10.496116
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

Jeffry's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.33 on 9 df, p 0.707

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.0%268-1.40.747-3.00.502+0.70.863-7.40.097+1.10.801+1.30.811+0.80.855-2.60.548-3.20.460
Breakable full fence+1.40.74748.4%254-1.60.726+2.20.622-6.00.185+2.50.576+2.70.625+2.20.613-1.20.785-1.80.686
Half fence+3.00.502+1.60.72650.0%240+3.70.401-4.40.336+4.10.372+4.30.446+3.80.392+0.40.932-0.20.967
Breakable half fence-0.70.863-2.20.622-3.70.40146.3%268-8.10.068+0.40.932+0.60.917+0.00.994-3.40.439-3.90.362
Low fence+7.40.097+6.00.185+4.40.336+8.10.06854.4%239+8.50.065+8.70.124+8.20.064+4.80.285+4.20.340
Single wall-1.10.801-2.50.576-4.10.372-0.40.932-8.50.06545.9%231+0.20.972-0.30.937-3.70.407-4.30.336
Fence and open-1.30.811-2.70.625-4.30.446-0.60.917-8.70.124-0.20.97245.7%116-0.60.921-3.90.480-4.50.417
Open-0.80.855-2.20.613-3.80.392-0.00.994-8.20.064+0.30.937+0.60.92146.2%279-3.40.430-3.90.353
Rectangle+2.60.548+1.20.785-0.40.932+3.40.439-4.80.285+3.70.407+3.90.480+3.40.43049.6%264-0.60.896
Octagon+3.20.460+1.80.686+0.20.967+3.90.362-4.20.340+4.30.336+4.50.417+3.90.353+0.60.89650.2%275
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 counted287
Win rate47.7%
Widest swing-20.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open66.7%+18.90.18012 ·
Open65.4%+17.60.05926 ·
Low fence60.0%+12.30.19925 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%+2.30.77834 ·
Half fence50.0%+2.30.77136 ·
Octagon50.0%+2.30.81724 ·
Single wall42.9%-4.90.53835 ·
Rectangle40.9%-6.80.50522 ·
Full fence38.5%-9.30.32126 ·
Breakable full fence26.9%-20.80.02626 ·
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

Jeffry's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 12.80 on 9 df, p 0.172

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence38.5%26+11.50.375-11.50.368-11.50.373-21.50.124-4.40.730-28.20.106-26.90.052-2.50.863-11.50.412
Breakable full fence-11.50.37526.9%26-23.10.068-23.10.071-33.10.017-15.90.200-39.80.020-38.50.005-14.00.306-23.10.093
Half fence+11.50.368+23.10.06850.0%36+0.01.000-10.00.441+7.10.546-16.70.316-15.40.228+9.10.501+0.01.000
Breakable half fence+11.50.373+23.10.071-0.01.00050.0%34-10.00.446+7.10.552-16.70.319-15.40.233+9.10.505+0.01.000
Low fence+21.50.124+33.10.017+10.00.441+10.00.44660.0%25+17.10.190-6.70.695-5.40.691+19.10.191+10.00.482
Single wall+4.40.730+15.90.200-7.10.546-7.10.552-17.10.19042.9%35-23.80.154-22.50.081+1.90.885-7.10.589
Fence and open+28.20.106+39.80.020+16.70.316+16.70.319+6.70.695+23.80.15466.7%12+1.30.938+25.80.151+16.70.343
Open+26.90.052+38.50.005+15.40.228+15.40.233+5.40.691+22.50.081-1.30.93865.4%26+24.50.090+15.40.271
Rectangle+2.50.863+14.00.306-9.10.501-9.10.505-19.10.191-1.90.885-25.80.151-24.50.09040.9%22-9.10.536
Octagon+11.50.412+23.10.093-0.01.000-0.01.000-10.00.482+7.10.589-16.70.343-15.40.271+9.10.53650.0%24
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.