VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jeffry vs Vanessa

Jeffry vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Jeffry wins 47.5% of 3,471 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 counted3,471
Win rate47.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.0 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
Rectangle51.2%+3.70.133361
Breakable full fence50.7%+3.20.195373
Breakable half fence50.1%+2.60.308335
Octagon49.6%+2.10.372395
Full fence48.7%+1.20.648341
Single wall47.4%-0.10.967327
Half fence45.0%-2.50.320349
Low fence44.2%-3.30.214319
Open43.7%-3.80.144334
Fence and open43.5%-4.00.273177
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 10.65 on 9 df, p 0.301

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.7%341-2.00.595+3.70.331-1.50.703+4.50.249+1.30.741+5.20.263+5.00.196-2.60.497-0.90.799
Breakable full fence+2.00.59550.7%373+5.70.127+0.50.890+6.50.089+3.30.388+7.20.116+7.00.064-0.60.876+1.10.771
Half fence-3.70.331-5.70.12745.0%349-5.20.176+0.80.838-2.40.529+1.50.746+1.30.738-6.30.095-4.60.206
Breakable half fence+1.50.703-0.50.890+5.20.17650.1%335+6.00.128+2.80.479+6.70.152+6.40.095-1.10.772+0.50.887
Low fence-4.50.249-6.50.089-0.80.838-6.00.12844.2%319-3.20.414+0.70.881+0.50.900-7.00.066-5.40.149
Single wall-1.30.741-3.30.388+2.40.529-2.80.479+3.20.41447.4%327+3.90.402+3.70.341-3.90.314-2.20.553
Fence and open-5.20.263-7.20.116-1.50.746-6.70.152-0.70.881-3.90.40243.5%177-0.20.964-7.80.091-6.10.176
Open-5.00.196-7.00.064-1.30.738-6.40.095-0.50.900-3.70.341+0.20.96443.7%334-7.50.047-5.90.111
Rectangle+2.60.497+0.60.876+6.30.095+1.10.772+7.00.066+3.90.314+7.80.091+7.50.04751.2%361+1.60.655
Octagon+0.90.799-1.10.771+4.60.206-0.50.887+5.40.149+2.20.553+6.10.176+5.90.111-1.60.65549.6%395
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 counted1,526
Win rate47.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches9.6 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 full fence57.3%+9.60.011157
Breakable half fence53.2%+5.50.130169
Rectangle51.2%+3.50.351162
Full fence48.3%+0.60.887149
Octagon47.7%-0.10.984174
Half fence45.3%-2.40.514161
Single wall43.8%-3.90.317146
Fence and open43.8%-4.00.51064 ·
Low fence42.9%-4.90.210147
Open39.7%-8.10.069116
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 14.75 on 9 df, p 0.098

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.3%149-9.00.115+3.00.599-4.90.380+5.50.345+4.50.440+4.60.540+8.70.159-2.90.608+0.60.911
Breakable full fence+9.00.11557.3%157+12.00.033+4.10.460+14.50.012+13.50.019+13.60.067+17.70.004+6.10.275+9.60.080
Half fence-3.00.599-12.00.03345.3%161-7.90.151+2.50.661+1.50.791+1.60.829+5.70.346-5.90.289-2.40.665
Breakable half fence+4.90.380-4.10.460+7.90.15153.2%169+10.40.065+9.40.095+9.50.195+13.60.024+2.00.713+5.50.304
Low fence-5.50.345-14.50.012-2.50.661-10.40.06542.9%147-1.00.866-0.90.904+3.20.601-8.40.141-4.80.385
Single wall-4.50.440-13.50.019-1.50.791-9.40.095+1.00.86643.8%146+0.10.991+4.20.496-7.40.194-3.90.489
Fence and open-4.60.540-13.60.067-1.60.829-9.50.195+0.90.904-0.10.99143.8%64+4.10.593-7.50.311-4.00.588
Open-8.70.159-17.70.004-5.70.346-13.60.024-3.20.601-4.20.496-4.10.59339.7%116-11.60.056-8.00.177
Rectangle+2.90.608-6.10.275+5.90.289-2.00.713+8.40.141+7.40.194+7.50.311+11.60.05651.2%162+3.50.517
Octagon-0.60.911-9.60.080+2.40.665-5.50.304+4.80.385+3.90.489+4.00.588+8.00.177-3.50.51747.7%174
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 counted1,697
Win rate48.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-3.6 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
Rectangle51.4%+2.90.422175
Octagon51.0%+2.50.464192
Full fence50.9%+2.30.520175
Single wall50.6%+2.10.583158
Breakable half fence49.6%+1.10.784143
Open48.5%-0.10.976194
Half fence47.1%-1.40.708157
Low fence46.8%-1.80.644156
Breakable full fence45.5%-3.10.368187
Fence and open44.9%-3.60.48489
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 3.22 on 9 df, p 0.955

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.9%175+5.40.304+3.70.498+1.20.830+4.10.461+0.20.967+5.90.364+2.40.645-0.60.915-0.20.972
Breakable full fence-5.40.30445.5%187-1.70.756-4.20.449-1.30.804-5.20.337+0.50.936-3.00.558-6.00.256-5.60.276
Half fence-3.70.498+1.70.75647.1%157-2.50.663+0.30.952-3.50.534+2.20.741-1.30.806-4.30.435-3.90.468
Breakable half fence-1.20.830+4.20.449+2.50.66349.6%143+2.90.622-1.00.865+4.70.485+1.20.828-1.80.752-1.40.801
Low fence-4.10.461+1.30.804-0.30.952-2.90.62246.8%156-3.80.496+1.90.780-1.70.757-4.60.400-4.20.431
Single wall-0.20.967+5.20.337+3.50.534+1.00.865+3.80.49650.6%158+5.70.390+2.20.684-0.80.885-0.40.939
Fence and open-5.90.364-0.50.936-2.20.741-4.70.485-1.90.780-5.70.39044.9%89-3.50.583-6.50.319-6.10.342
Open-2.40.645+3.00.558+1.30.806-1.20.828+1.70.757-2.20.684+3.50.58348.5%194-3.00.568-2.60.611
Rectangle+0.60.915+6.00.256+4.30.435+1.80.752+4.60.400+0.80.885+6.50.319+3.00.56851.4%175+0.40.941
Octagon+0.20.972+5.60.276+3.90.468+1.40.801+4.20.431+0.40.939+6.10.342+2.60.611-0.40.94151.0%192
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 counted248
Win rate38.7%
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
Octagon51.7%+13.00.12629 ·
Rectangle50.0%+11.30.23224 ·
Breakable full fence48.3%+9.60.26029 ·
Single wall47.8%+9.10.34623 ·
Fence and open37.5%-1.20.89824 ·
Half fence32.3%-6.50.43031 ·
Low fence31.2%-7.50.52616 ·
Breakable half fence30.4%-8.30.39223 ·
Full fence29.4%-9.30.41517 ·
Open25.0%-13.70.14724 ·
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 9.34 on 9 df, p 0.406

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence29.4%17-18.90.210-2.90.839-1.00.944-1.80.909-18.40.240-8.10.591+4.40.753-20.60.187-22.30.141
Breakable full fence+18.90.21048.3%29+16.00.206+17.90.193+17.00.268+0.50.974+10.80.431+23.30.082-1.70.901-3.40.793
Half fence+2.90.839-16.00.20632.3%31+1.80.887+1.00.944-15.60.246-5.20.685+7.30.557-17.70.183-19.50.126
Breakable half fence+1.00.944-17.90.193-1.80.88730.4%23-0.80.957-17.40.227-7.10.609+5.40.677-19.60.172-21.30.123
Low fence+1.80.909-17.00.268-1.00.944+0.80.95731.2%16-16.60.301-6.20.685+6.20.665-18.80.240-20.50.186
Single wall+18.40.240-0.50.974+15.60.246+17.40.227+16.60.30147.8%23+10.30.474+22.80.104-2.20.882-3.90.780
Fence and open+8.10.591-10.80.431+5.20.685+7.10.609+6.20.685-10.30.47437.5%24+12.50.350-12.50.383-14.20.300
Open-4.40.753-23.30.082-7.30.557-5.40.677-6.20.665-22.80.104-12.50.35025.0%24-25.00.074-26.70.048
Rectangle+20.60.187+1.70.901+17.70.183+19.60.172+18.80.240+2.20.882+12.50.383+25.00.07450.0%24-1.70.901
Octagon+22.30.141+3.40.793+19.50.126+21.30.123+20.50.186+3.90.780+14.20.300+26.70.048+1.70.90151.7%29
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.