VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lei Fei vs Lion

Lei Fei vs Lion in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lei Fei wins 49.6% of 3,072 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 counted3,072
Win rate49.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.6 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence54.0%+4.40.082346
Breakable half fence52.3%+2.70.308323
Full fence52.2%+2.50.358301
Breakable full fence50.1%+0.50.843341
Rectangle50.0%+0.40.896302
Single wall49.2%-0.50.862299
Fence and open48.8%-0.90.817160
Octagon45.9%-3.70.189281
Low fence45.5%-4.20.137286
Open45.1%-4.60.106284
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.43 on 9 df, p 0.317

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence52.2%301+2.00.611-1.90.631-0.20.968+6.70.104+3.00.463+3.40.486+7.10.086+2.20.596+6.20.132
Breakable full fence-2.00.61150.1%341-3.90.306-2.20.575+4.70.241+1.00.804+1.40.771+5.10.206+0.10.970+4.20.292
Half fence+1.90.631+3.90.30654.0%346+1.70.655+8.60.032+4.90.216+5.30.267+9.00.025+4.00.304+8.10.043
Breakable half fence+0.20.968+2.20.575-1.70.65552.3%323+6.90.091+3.20.431+3.60.460+7.20.075+2.30.562+6.40.116
Low fence-6.70.104-4.70.241-8.60.032-6.90.09145.5%286-3.70.369-3.30.503+0.40.927-4.50.270-0.50.914
Single wall-3.00.463-1.00.804-4.90.216-3.20.431+3.70.36949.2%299+0.40.933+4.10.322-0.80.838+3.20.433
Fence and open-3.40.486-1.40.771-5.30.267-3.60.460+3.30.503-0.40.93348.8%160+3.70.455-1.20.798+2.80.565
Open-7.10.086-5.10.206-9.00.025-7.20.075-0.40.927-4.10.322-3.70.45545.1%284-4.90.232-0.80.842
Rectangle-2.20.596-0.10.970-4.00.304-2.30.562+4.50.270+0.80.838+1.20.798+4.90.23250.0%302+4.10.323
Octagon-6.20.132-4.20.292-8.10.043-6.40.116+0.50.914-3.20.433-2.80.565+0.80.842-4.10.32345.9%281
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 counted954
Win rate48.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-8.8 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence56.9%+8.20.067109
Single wall55.3%+6.70.19885
Half fence53.1%+4.40.35598
Fence and open51.8%+3.10.62756 ·
Low fence49.4%+0.80.87489
Octagon48.1%-0.50.92179 ·
Breakable full fence46.5%-2.20.64899
Rectangle44.0%-4.60.327100
Open40.0%-8.60.07695
Breakable half fence39.8%-8.80.058103
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 12.56 on 9 df, p 0.184

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.9%109+10.40.133+3.80.581+17.10.013+7.40.296+1.60.825+5.10.533+16.90.016+12.90.063+8.80.234
Breakable full fence-10.40.13346.5%99-6.60.355+6.70.339-3.00.684-8.80.232-5.30.524+6.50.364+2.50.727-1.60.828
Half fence-3.80.581+6.60.35553.1%98+13.20.060+3.60.621-2.20.762+1.30.879+13.10.069+9.10.202+5.00.512
Breakable half fence-17.10.013-6.70.339-13.20.06039.8%103-9.60.180-15.50.034-12.00.146-0.20.978-4.20.545-8.30.263
Low fence-7.40.296+3.00.684-3.60.621+9.60.18049.4%89-5.80.439-2.40.783+9.40.198+5.40.454+1.30.863
Single wall-1.60.825+8.80.232+2.20.762+15.50.034+5.80.43955.3%85+3.50.683+15.30.040+11.30.126+7.20.357
Fence and open-5.10.533+5.30.524-1.30.879+12.00.146+2.40.783-3.50.68351.8%56+11.80.159+7.80.350+3.70.673
Open-16.90.016-6.50.364-13.10.069+0.20.978-9.40.198-15.30.040-11.80.15940.0%95-4.00.572-8.10.283
Rectangle-12.90.063-2.50.727-9.10.202+4.20.545-5.40.454-11.30.126-7.80.350+4.00.57244.0%100-4.10.584
Octagon-8.80.234+1.60.828-5.00.512+8.30.263-1.30.863-7.20.357-3.70.673+8.10.283+4.10.58448.1%79
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 counted1,595
Win rate48.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-9.1 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable half fence57.1%+8.90.012175
Breakable full fence50.5%+2.30.498188
Half fence50.0%+1.80.604186
Rectangle49.7%+1.40.716145
Octagon48.0%-0.20.966154
Full fence46.8%-1.40.715158
Open46.3%-1.90.619147
Fence and open46.0%-2.30.68974 ·
Single wall43.2%-5.00.213139
Low fence39.1%-9.10.025138
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 12.83 on 9 df, p 0.171

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.8%158-3.70.493-3.20.558-10.30.060+7.70.182+3.70.526+0.90.899+0.60.920-2.80.624-1.20.830
Breakable full fence+3.70.49350.5%188+0.50.918-6.60.207+11.40.041+7.40.187+4.60.504+4.30.437+0.90.874+2.50.648
Half fence+3.20.558-0.50.91850.0%186-7.10.174+10.90.052+6.80.222+4.00.555+3.70.497+0.30.950+1.90.721
Breakable half fence+10.30.060+6.60.207+7.10.17457.1%175+18.00.002+14.00.014+11.20.105+10.90.051+7.50.181+9.10.099
Low fence-7.70.182-11.40.041-10.90.052-18.00.00239.1%138-4.00.495-6.80.337-7.10.224-10.50.075-8.90.125
Single wall-3.70.526-7.40.187-6.80.222-14.00.014+4.00.49543.2%139-2.80.697-3.10.599-6.50.273-4.90.402
Fence and open-0.90.899-4.60.504-4.00.555-11.20.105+6.80.337+2.80.69746.0%74-0.30.965-3.70.603-2.10.766
Open-0.60.920-4.30.437-3.70.497-10.90.051+7.10.224+3.10.599+0.30.96546.3%147-3.40.561-1.80.755
Rectangle+2.80.624-0.90.874-0.30.950-7.50.181+10.50.075+6.50.273+3.70.603+3.40.56149.7%145+1.60.782
Octagon+1.20.830-2.50.648-1.90.721-9.10.099+8.90.125+4.90.402+2.10.766+1.80.755-1.60.78248.0%154
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 counted523
Win rate55.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence67.7%+11.90.04462 ·
Breakable half fence62.2%+6.40.36745 ·
Full fence61.8%+5.90.47134 ·
Rectangle61.4%+5.60.36957 ·
Breakable full fence55.6%-0.30.96654 ·
Low fence54.2%-1.60.79359 ·
Single wall53.3%-2.50.63875 ·
Open52.4%-3.50.63942 ·
Fence and open50.0%-5.80.50830 ·
Octagon35.4%-20.40.00348 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 14.49 on 9 df, p 0.106

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence61.8%34+6.20.566-6.00.555-0.50.967+7.50.480+8.40.411+11.80.344+9.40.412+0.40.973+26.30.018
Breakable full fence-6.20.56655.6%54-12.20.177-6.70.503+1.30.888+2.20.803+5.60.625+3.20.757-5.80.532+20.10.042
Half fence+6.00.555+12.20.17767.7%62+5.50.553+13.50.128+14.40.087+17.70.100+15.40.114+6.30.470+32.3<0.001
Breakable half fence+0.50.967+6.70.503-5.50.55362.2%45+8.00.414+8.90.341+12.20.294+9.80.354+0.80.933+26.80.010
Low fence-7.50.480-1.30.888-13.50.128-8.00.41454.2%59+0.90.917+4.20.705+1.90.854-7.20.435+18.80.052
Single wall-8.40.411-2.20.803-14.40.087-8.90.341-0.90.91753.3%75+3.30.757+0.90.921-8.10.354+17.90.052
Fence and open-11.80.344-5.60.625-17.70.100-12.20.294-4.20.705-3.30.75750.0%30-2.40.842-11.40.306+14.60.203
Open-9.40.412-3.20.757-15.40.114-9.80.354-1.90.854-0.90.921+2.40.84252.4%42-9.00.369+17.00.105
Rectangle-0.40.973+5.80.532-6.30.470-0.80.933+7.20.435+8.10.354+11.40.306+9.00.36961.4%57+26.00.008
Octagon-26.30.018-20.10.042-32.3<0.001-26.80.010-18.80.052-17.90.052-14.60.203-17.00.105-26.00.00835.4%48
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.