VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jeffry vs Sarah

Jeffry vs Sarah in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jeffry wins 52.6% of 5,441 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 counted5,441
Win rate52.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open56.9%+4.30.129290
Breakable full fence54.8%+2.30.256558
Full fence54.6%+2.10.308538
Octagon53.5%+0.90.648578
Rectangle53.4%+0.80.707489
Breakable half fence52.8%+0.30.900513
Low fence51.9%-0.70.724542
Open51.2%-1.40.504541
Half fence50.7%-1.90.322602
Single wall50.3%-2.30.264537
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.01 on 9 df, p 0.636

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.6%538-0.20.949+4.00.179+1.80.554+2.80.356+4.40.152-2.20.534+3.50.257+1.30.683+1.20.691
Breakable full fence+0.20.94954.8%558+4.20.155+2.00.509+3.00.320+4.60.131-2.10.567+3.60.227+1.50.635+1.40.641
Half fence-4.00.179-4.20.15550.7%602-2.20.472-1.20.690+0.40.897-6.20.081-0.50.856-2.70.373-2.80.337
Breakable half fence-1.80.554-2.00.509+2.20.47252.8%513+1.00.750+2.50.409-4.10.266+1.60.598-0.50.862-0.60.834
Low fence-2.80.356-3.00.320+1.20.690-1.00.75051.9%542+1.60.607-5.00.164+0.70.832-1.50.623-1.60.588
Single wall-4.40.152-4.60.131-0.40.897-2.50.409-1.60.60750.3%537-6.60.069-0.90.762-3.10.322-3.20.288
Fence and open+2.20.534+2.10.567+6.20.081+4.10.266+5.00.164+6.60.06956.9%290+5.70.117+3.50.340+3.40.337
Open-3.50.257-3.60.227+0.50.856-1.60.598-0.70.832+0.90.762-5.70.11751.2%541-2.20.486-2.30.450
Rectangle-1.30.683-1.50.635+2.70.373+0.50.862+1.50.623+3.10.322-3.50.340+2.20.48653.4%489-0.10.978
Octagon-1.20.691-1.40.641+2.80.337+0.60.834+1.60.588+3.20.288-3.40.337+2.30.450+0.10.97853.5%578
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 counted2,867
Win rate52.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.4 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open60.8%+8.40.058120
Octagon54.6%+2.20.427295
Breakable full fence54.1%+1.80.529290
Full fence53.9%+1.50.594299
Half fence53.3%+0.90.725334
Low fence52.9%+0.50.869280
Rectangle52.1%-0.30.924261
Breakable half fence49.5%-2.90.293295
Single wall49.0%-3.40.214300
Open48.6%-3.80.177284
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.77 on 9 df, p 0.459

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.9%299-0.30.943+0.60.889+4.40.288+1.00.812+4.80.235-7.00.193+5.30.205+1.70.681-0.70.858
Breakable full fence+0.30.94354.1%290+0.80.833+4.70.261+1.30.759+5.10.212-6.70.214+5.50.184+2.00.633-0.40.915
Half fence-0.60.889-0.80.83353.3%334+3.80.341+0.40.914+4.30.280-7.50.154+4.70.244+1.20.774-1.30.747
Breakable half fence-4.40.288-4.70.261-3.80.34149.5%295-3.40.420+0.50.905-11.30.036+0.90.829-2.60.538-5.10.216
Low fence-1.00.812-1.30.759-0.40.914+3.40.42052.9%280+3.90.353-8.00.142+4.30.311+0.80.861-1.70.679
Single wall-4.80.235-5.10.212-4.30.280-0.50.905-3.90.35349.0%300-11.80.028+0.40.921-3.10.463-5.60.174
Fence and open+7.00.193+6.70.214+7.50.154+11.30.036+8.00.142+11.80.02860.8%120+12.20.024+8.70.112+6.20.244
Open-5.30.205-5.50.184-4.70.244-0.90.829-4.30.311-0.40.921-12.20.02448.6%284-3.50.412-6.00.150
Rectangle-1.70.681-2.00.633-1.20.774+2.60.538-0.80.861+3.10.463-8.70.112+3.50.41252.1%261-2.50.560
Octagon+0.70.858+0.40.915+1.30.747+5.10.216+1.70.679+5.60.174-6.20.244+6.00.150+2.50.56054.6%295
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 counted2,349
Win rate52.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence57.6%+5.30.125191
Full fence56.2%+3.90.215226
Breakable full fence55.9%+3.60.240238
Octagon54.2%+1.90.509262
Rectangle54.0%+1.70.600213
Fence and open53.1%+0.80.831162
Open52.0%-0.20.945219
Single wall50.2%-2.00.521221
Low fence50.0%-2.30.458238
Half fence47.0%-5.30.077251
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.80 on 9 df, p 0.456

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.2%226+0.30.946+9.20.045-1.40.774+6.20.181+6.00.206+3.10.544+4.10.381+2.20.643+2.00.658
Breakable full fence-0.30.94655.9%238+8.90.050-1.70.723+5.90.199+5.70.225+2.80.581+3.80.412+1.90.687+1.70.705
Half fence-9.20.045-8.90.05047.0%251-10.60.027-3.00.509-3.20.486-6.10.228-5.00.275-7.00.134-7.20.104
Breakable half fence+1.40.774+1.70.723+10.60.02757.6%191+7.60.117+7.40.135+4.50.396+5.50.261+3.60.467+3.40.473
Low fence-6.20.181-5.90.199+3.00.509-7.60.11750.0%238-0.20.961-3.10.544-2.00.661-4.00.397-4.20.348
Single wall-6.00.206-5.70.225+3.20.486-7.40.135+0.20.96150.2%221-2.90.580-1.80.701-3.80.433-4.00.384
Fence and open-3.10.544-2.80.581+6.10.228-4.50.396+3.10.544+2.90.58053.1%162+1.00.842-0.90.862-1.10.823
Open-4.10.381-3.80.412+5.00.275-5.50.261+2.00.661+1.80.701-1.00.84252.0%219-1.90.687-2.10.639
Rectangle-2.20.643-1.90.687+7.00.134-3.60.467+4.00.397+3.80.433+0.90.862+1.90.68754.0%213-0.20.964
Octagon-2.00.658-1.70.705+7.20.104-3.40.473+4.20.348+4.00.384+1.10.823+2.10.639+0.20.96454.2%262
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 counted225
Win rate57.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Jeffry's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open75.0%+17.20.3158 ·
Single wall75.0%+17.20.14816 ·
Rectangle66.7%+8.90.47115 ·
Open65.8%+8.00.27338 ·
Low fence58.3%+0.60.95424 ·
Breakable half fence55.6%-2.20.80327 ·
Breakable full fence53.3%-4.50.59730 ·
Half fence52.9%-4.80.67517 ·
Full fence46.1%-11.60.38213 ·
Octagon28.6%-29.20.00421 ·
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

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 fence46.1%13-7.20.665-6.80.713-9.40.577-12.20.478-28.90.111-28.90.195-19.60.211-20.50.274+17.60.297
Breakable full fence+7.20.66553.3%30+0.40.979-2.20.866-5.00.713-21.70.152-21.70.270-12.50.297-13.30.393+24.80.079
Half fence+6.80.713-0.40.97952.9%17-2.60.865-5.40.732-22.10.188-22.10.294-12.80.365-13.70.430+24.40.126
Breakable half fence+9.40.577+2.20.866+2.60.86555.6%27-2.80.842-19.40.202-19.40.324-10.20.403-11.10.482+27.00.062
Low fence+12.20.478+5.00.713+5.40.732+2.80.84258.3%24-16.70.279-16.70.399-7.50.554-8.30.603+29.80.045
Single wall+28.90.111+21.70.152+22.10.188+19.40.202+16.70.27975.0%16+0.01.000+9.20.506+8.30.609+46.40.005
Fence and open+28.90.195+21.70.270+22.10.294+19.40.324+16.70.399-0.01.00075.0%8+9.20.613+8.30.679+46.40.023
Open+19.60.211+12.50.297+12.80.365+10.20.403+7.50.554-9.20.506-9.20.61365.8%38-0.90.952+37.20.006
Rectangle+20.50.274+13.30.393+13.70.430+11.10.482+8.30.603-8.30.609-8.30.679+0.90.95266.7%15+38.10.023
Octagon-17.60.297-24.80.079-24.40.126-27.00.062-29.80.045-46.40.005-46.40.023-37.20.006-38.10.02328.6%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.