VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Jeffry vs Vanessa

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,706
Win rate47.4%
Widest swing5.5 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
Octagon52.9%+5.50.109189
Rectangle52.7%+5.30.128184
Full fence47.7%+0.30.938174
Breakable half fence47.5%+0.10.988139
Open47.2%-0.20.955180
Single wall46.9%-0.50.892162
Low fence46.8%-0.60.870156
Breakable full fence46.0%-1.40.668200
Half fence44.0%-3.40.349166
Fence and open42.7%-4.70.35989
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 6.07 on 9 df, p 0.733

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.7%174+1.70.742+3.70.491+0.20.969+0.90.869+0.80.885+5.00.441+0.50.928-5.00.343-5.20.321
Breakable full fence-1.70.74246.0%200+2.00.698-1.50.788-0.80.881-0.90.862+3.30.602-1.20.812-6.70.188-6.90.173
Half fence-3.70.491-2.00.69844.0%166-3.50.540-2.80.612-2.90.593+1.30.844-3.20.545-8.70.102-8.90.093
Breakable half fence-0.20.969+1.50.788+3.50.54047.5%139+0.70.906+0.60.922+4.80.479+0.30.963-5.20.351-5.40.331
Low fence-0.90.869+0.80.881+2.80.612-0.70.90646.8%156-0.10.983+4.10.535-0.40.938-5.90.276-6.10.258
Single wall-0.80.885+0.90.862+2.90.593-0.60.922+0.10.98346.9%162+4.20.521-0.30.954-5.80.281-6.00.263
Fence and open-5.00.441-3.30.602-1.30.844-4.80.479-4.10.535-4.20.52142.7%89-4.50.483-10.00.121-10.20.112
Open-0.50.928+1.20.812+3.20.545-0.30.963+0.40.938+0.30.954+4.50.48347.2%180-5.50.294-5.70.275
Rectangle+5.00.343+6.70.188+8.70.102+5.20.351+5.90.276+5.80.281+10.00.121+5.50.29452.7%184-0.20.970
Octagon+5.20.321+6.90.173+8.90.093+5.40.331+6.10.258+6.00.263+10.20.112+5.70.275+0.20.97052.9%189
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 counted1,502
Win rate48.5%
Widest swing4.7 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
Rectangle53.1%+4.70.212160
Octagon53.0%+4.50.214166
Breakable half fence50.4%+2.00.659117
Open50.3%+1.80.622159
Full fence49.1%+0.60.875159
Single wall47.2%-1.30.747142
Low fence46.6%-1.90.636148
Half fence45.5%-3.00.448143
Breakable full fence45.4%-3.10.389174
Fence and open44.4%-4.00.48472 ·
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 5.07 on 9 df, p 0.828

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.1%159+3.70.505+3.60.531-1.40.822+2.40.670+1.90.745+4.60.516-1.20.823-4.10.467-4.00.476
Breakable full fence-3.70.50545.4%174-0.10.993-5.00.400-1.20.827-1.80.752+1.00.891-4.90.370-7.70.158-7.60.161
Half fence-3.60.531+0.10.99345.5%143-5.00.424-1.20.842-1.70.770+1.00.888-4.90.399-7.70.182-7.60.185
Breakable half fence+1.40.822+5.00.400+5.00.42450.4%117+3.80.538+3.20.603+6.00.424+0.10.985-2.70.657-2.60.668
Low fence-2.40.670+1.20.827+1.20.842-3.80.53846.6%148-0.60.924+2.20.761-3.70.518-6.50.254-6.40.258
Single wall-1.90.745+1.80.752+1.70.770-3.20.603+0.60.92447.2%142+2.70.704-3.10.587-5.90.303-5.80.308
Fence and open-4.60.516-1.00.891-1.00.888-6.00.424-2.20.761-2.70.70444.4%72-5.90.408-8.70.221-8.60.225
Open+1.20.823+4.90.370+4.90.399-0.10.985+3.70.518+3.10.587+5.90.40850.3%159-2.80.615-2.70.627
Rectangle+4.10.467+7.70.158+7.70.182+2.70.657+6.50.254+5.90.303+8.70.221+2.80.61553.1%160+0.10.984
Octagon+4.00.476+7.60.161+7.60.185+2.60.668+6.40.258+5.80.308+8.60.225+2.70.627-0.10.98453.0%166
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 counted204
Win rate39.7%
Widest swing-15.9 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
Octagon52.2%+12.50.19423 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%+10.30.25126 ·
Low fence50.0%+10.30.5448 ·
Rectangle50.0%+10.30.27324 ·
Single wall45.0%+5.30.61020 ·
Fence and open35.3%-4.40.69817 ·
Half fence34.8%-4.90.60823 ·
Full fence33.3%-6.40.60015 ·
Breakable half fence31.8%-7.90.42322 ·
Open23.8%-15.90.11621 ·
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 7.56 on 9 df, p 0.579

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence33.3%15-16.70.300-1.40.927+1.50.923-16.70.435-11.70.486-2.00.907+9.50.529-16.70.307-18.80.254
Breakable full fence+16.70.30050.0%26+15.20.283+18.20.203+0.01.000+5.00.736+14.70.342+26.20.066+0.01.000-2.20.879
Half fence+1.40.927-15.20.28334.8%23+3.00.833-15.20.447-10.20.494-0.50.973+11.00.426-15.20.292-17.40.234
Breakable half fence-1.50.923-18.20.203-3.00.83331.8%22-18.20.361-13.20.380-3.50.819+8.00.558-18.20.211-20.40.167
Low fence+16.70.435-0.01.000+15.20.447+18.20.36150.0%8+5.00.811+14.70.484+26.20.173+0.01.000-2.20.916
Single wall+11.70.486-5.00.736+10.20.494+13.20.380-5.00.81145.0%20+9.70.549+21.20.153-5.00.741-7.20.639
Fence and open+2.00.907-14.70.342+0.50.973+3.50.819-14.70.484-9.70.54935.3%17+11.50.438-14.70.350-16.90.289
Open-9.50.529-26.20.066-11.00.426-8.00.558-26.20.173-21.20.153-11.50.43823.8%21-26.20.071-28.40.054
Rectangle+16.70.307-0.01.000+15.20.292+18.20.211-0.01.000+5.00.741+14.70.350+26.20.07150.0%24-2.20.882
Octagon+18.80.254+2.20.879+17.40.234+20.40.167+2.20.916+7.20.639+16.90.289+28.40.054+2.20.88252.2%23
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.