VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Kage vs Sarah

Kage vs Sarah in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Kage wins 51.8% of 5,153 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 counted5,153
Win rate51.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Kage's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open55.6%+3.80.234234
Low fence54.2%+2.40.235539
Breakable full fence53.9%+2.10.326492
Open53.6%+1.80.388502
Single wall53.0%+1.30.540509
Full fence51.7%-0.10.970565
Rectangle51.5%-0.30.900534
Octagon49.4%-2.30.259528
Half fence48.6%-3.10.136518
Breakable half fence48.4%-3.40.115486
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.91 on 9 df, p 0.358

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.7%565-2.20.479+3.00.319+3.30.282-2.50.407-1.40.655-3.90.318-1.90.534+0.20.952+2.20.457
Breakable full fence+2.20.47953.9%492+5.20.098+5.50.085-0.30.920+0.80.796-1.70.668+0.30.930+2.40.449+4.40.157
Half fence-3.00.319-5.20.09848.6%518+0.30.926-5.50.072-4.40.159-6.90.079-4.90.115-2.90.355-0.80.800
Breakable half fence-3.30.282-5.50.085-0.30.92648.4%486-5.80.063-4.70.139-7.20.070-5.20.100-3.10.316-1.10.732
Low fence+2.50.407+0.30.920+5.50.072+5.80.06354.2%539+1.10.714-1.40.723+0.60.849+2.70.380+4.70.121
Single wall+1.40.655-0.80.796+4.40.159+4.70.139-1.10.71453.0%509-2.50.524-0.50.863+1.60.617+3.60.245
Fence and open+3.90.318+1.70.668+6.90.079+7.20.070+1.40.723+2.50.52455.6%234+2.00.617+4.10.300+6.10.119
Open+1.90.534-0.30.930+4.90.115+5.20.100-0.60.849+0.50.863-2.00.61753.6%502+2.10.501+4.20.182
Rectangle-0.20.952-2.40.449+2.90.355+3.10.316-2.70.380-1.60.617-4.10.300-2.10.50151.5%534+2.10.501
Octagon-2.20.457-4.40.157+0.80.800+1.10.732-4.70.121-3.60.245-6.10.119-4.20.182-2.10.50149.4%528
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 counted2,212
Win rate50.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.6 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Kage's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Fence and open55.6%+5.60.25499
Breakable full fence55.0%+5.00.116222
Full fence53.1%+3.10.301243
Single wall52.7%+2.80.388222
Low fence50.9%+1.00.763214
Open50.2%+0.30.932223
Octagon47.9%-2.10.524211
Rectangle47.4%-2.50.413232
Half fence46.2%-3.70.237225
Breakable half fence45.4%-4.60.156216
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.17 on 9 df, p 0.421

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.1%243-1.90.686+6.90.138+7.70.099+2.20.646+0.40.934-2.50.678+2.90.537+5.70.216+5.20.267
Breakable full fence+1.90.68655.0%222+8.70.065+9.60.045+4.00.400+2.20.634-0.60.920+4.70.318+7.50.108+7.10.140
Half fence-6.90.138-8.70.06546.2%225+0.80.858-4.70.323-6.50.171-9.30.122-4.00.397-1.20.799-1.60.731
Breakable half fence-7.70.099-9.60.045-0.80.85845.4%216-5.60.248-7.30.125-10.20.093-4.80.309-2.00.665-2.50.605
Low fence-2.20.646-4.00.400+4.70.323+5.60.24850.9%214-1.80.712-4.60.447+0.70.882+3.50.457+3.10.527
Single wall-0.40.934-2.20.634+6.50.171+7.30.125+1.80.71252.7%222-2.90.636+2.50.601+5.30.260+4.80.314
Fence and open+2.50.678+0.60.920+9.30.122+10.20.093+4.60.447+2.90.63655.6%99+5.30.377+8.20.175+7.70.207
Open-2.90.537-4.70.318+4.00.397+4.80.309-0.70.882-2.50.601-5.30.37750.2%223+2.80.549+2.40.623
Rectangle-5.70.216-7.50.108+1.20.799+2.00.665-3.50.457-5.30.260-8.20.175-2.80.54947.4%232-0.50.924
Octagon-5.20.267-7.10.140+1.60.731+2.50.605-3.10.527-4.80.314-7.70.207-2.40.623+0.50.92447.9%211
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 counted2,505
Win rate53.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Kage's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Open57.9%+4.80.120235
Fence and open56.2%+3.20.488112
Rectangle55.8%+2.80.348258
Low fence55.5%+2.50.380281
Single wall54.0%+0.90.752250
Octagon51.1%-2.00.484278
Breakable half fence50.4%-2.60.392238
Half fence50.2%-2.80.359235
Breakable full fence49.8%-3.30.308219
Full fence49.6%-3.40.234268
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.26 on 9 df, p 0.508

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.6%268-0.10.975-0.60.896-0.80.859-5.90.167-4.40.320-6.60.239-8.20.064-6.20.155-1.40.734
Breakable full fence+0.10.97549.8%219-0.40.925-0.70.890-5.80.202-4.20.360-6.50.264-8.10.084-6.00.188-1.30.772
Half fence+0.60.896+0.40.92550.2%235-0.20.964-5.30.229-3.80.404-6.00.293-7.70.096-5.60.213-0.90.845
Breakable half fence+0.80.859+0.70.890+0.20.96450.4%238-5.10.246-3.60.429-5.80.308-7.50.104-5.40.229-0.70.881
Low fence+5.90.167+5.80.202+5.30.229+5.10.24655.5%281+1.50.726-0.70.895-2.40.591-0.30.945+4.40.293
Single wall+4.40.320+4.20.360+3.80.404+3.60.429-1.50.72654.0%250-2.20.691-3.90.391-1.80.681+2.90.502
Fence and open+6.60.239+6.50.264+6.00.293+5.80.308+0.70.895+2.20.69156.2%112-1.60.775+0.40.938+5.20.355
Open+8.20.064+8.10.084+7.70.096+7.50.104+2.40.591+3.90.391+1.60.77557.9%235+2.10.645+6.80.124
Rectangle+6.20.155+6.00.188+5.60.213+5.40.229+0.30.945+1.80.681-0.40.938-2.10.64555.8%258+4.70.272
Octagon+1.40.734+1.30.772+0.90.845+0.70.881-4.40.293-2.90.502-5.20.355-6.80.124-4.70.27251.1%278
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 counted436
Win rate53.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Kage's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable full fence66.7%+13.20.04451 ·
Low fence61.4%+7.90.26644 ·
Full fence55.6%+2.10.73954 ·
Breakable half fence53.1%-0.30.97032 ·
Fence and open52.2%-1.30.90023 ·
Half fence51.7%-1.70.77858 ·
Single wall48.6%-4.80.54137 ·
Open47.7%-5.70.42344 ·
Rectangle47.7%-5.70.42344 ·
Octagon46.1%-7.30.33939 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 7.21 on 9 df, p 0.616

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence55.6%54-11.10.243+3.80.685+2.40.827-5.80.562+6.90.517+3.40.785+7.80.440+7.80.440+9.40.371
Breakable full fence+11.10.24366.7%51+14.90.114+13.60.217+5.30.591+18.00.090+14.50.234+18.90.062+18.90.062+20.50.051
Half fence-3.80.685-14.90.11451.7%58-1.40.899-9.60.332+3.10.770-0.50.971+4.00.689+4.00.689+5.60.591
Breakable half fence-2.40.827-13.60.217+1.40.89953.1%32-8.20.473+4.50.711+0.90.944+5.40.642+5.40.642+7.00.559
Low fence+5.80.562-5.30.591+9.60.332+8.20.47361.4%44+12.70.251+9.20.469+13.60.199+13.60.199+15.20.165
Single wall-6.90.517-18.00.090-3.10.770-4.50.711-12.70.25148.6%37-3.50.791+0.90.934+0.90.934+2.50.828
Fence and open-3.40.785-14.50.234+0.50.971-0.90.944-9.20.469+3.50.79152.2%23+4.40.730+4.40.730+6.00.647
Open-7.80.440-18.90.062-4.00.689-5.40.642-13.60.199-0.90.934-4.40.73047.7%44+0.01.000+1.60.886
Rectangle-7.80.440-18.90.062-4.00.689-5.40.642-13.60.199-0.90.934-4.40.730-0.01.00047.7%44+1.60.886
Octagon-9.40.371-20.50.051-5.60.591-7.00.559-15.20.165-2.50.828-6.00.647-1.60.886-1.60.88646.1%39
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.