VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lei Fei vs Pai

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,432
Win rate48.0%
Widest swing-10.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall52.9%+4.90.230136
Low fence51.0%+2.90.442153
Rectangle50.3%+2.30.552151
Breakable full fence49.6%+1.60.685143
Full fence48.3%+0.30.953118
Half fence48.0%+0.00.998154
Breakable half fence47.6%-0.50.895164
Fence and open47.1%-1.00.86868 ·
Open44.1%-4.00.351127
Octagon37.8%-10.30.012135
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.81 on 9 df, p 0.455

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.3%118-1.30.829+0.30.967+0.80.902-2.70.662-4.60.461+1.20.870+4.20.509-2.00.742+10.50.091
Breakable full fence+1.30.82949.6%143+1.60.783+2.10.715-1.30.819-3.30.583+2.60.725+5.60.361-0.70.907+11.90.046
Half fence-0.30.967-1.60.78348.0%154+0.50.930-2.90.608-4.90.406+1.00.891+4.00.508-2.30.691+10.30.079
Breakable half fence-0.80.902-2.10.715-0.50.93047.6%164-3.40.543-5.40.354+0.50.944+3.50.556-2.80.623+9.80.089
Low fence+2.70.662+1.30.819+2.90.608+3.40.54351.0%153-2.00.739+3.90.590+6.90.251+0.70.910+13.20.025
Single wall+4.60.461+3.30.583+4.90.406+5.40.354+2.00.73952.9%136+5.90.428+8.80.151+2.60.659+15.20.012
Fence and open-1.20.870-2.60.725-1.00.891-0.50.944-3.90.590-5.90.42847.1%68+3.00.692-3.30.654+9.30.204
Open-4.20.509-5.60.361-4.00.508-3.50.556-6.90.251-8.80.151-3.00.69244.1%127-6.20.300+6.30.299
Rectangle+2.00.742+0.70.907+2.30.691+2.80.623-0.70.910-2.60.659+3.30.654+6.20.30050.3%151+12.60.033
Octagon-10.50.091-11.90.046-10.30.079-9.80.089-13.20.025-15.20.012-9.30.204-6.30.299-12.60.03337.8%135
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 counted1,166
Win rate46.5%
Widest swing-10.6 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall52.0%+5.50.246102
Rectangle50.4%+3.90.364119
Open49.5%+3.00.53099
Low fence48.1%+1.60.703129
Breakable full fence46.7%+0.20.957107
Breakable half fence45.8%-0.70.857142
Fence and open45.6%-0.90.89357 ·
Half fence43.6%-2.80.500126
Full fence43.5%-3.00.57185
Octagon35.9%-10.60.015117
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.42 on 9 df, p 0.492

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence43.5%85-3.20.658-0.10.986-2.20.742-4.50.515-8.40.251-2.10.806-6.00.419-6.90.331+7.60.272
Breakable full fence+3.20.65846.7%107+3.10.638+1.00.881-1.30.838-5.20.450+1.10.892-2.80.691-3.70.579+10.80.100
Half fence+0.10.986-3.10.63843.6%126-2.10.727-4.40.480-8.30.211-2.00.804-5.80.383-6.80.289+7.80.218
Breakable half fence+2.20.742-1.00.881+2.10.72745.8%142-2.30.706-6.20.340+0.20.984-3.70.569-4.70.454+9.90.108
Low fence+4.50.515+1.30.838+4.40.480+2.30.70648.1%129-3.90.556+2.50.758-1.40.830-2.40.711+12.20.054
Single wall+8.40.251+5.20.450+8.30.211+6.20.340+3.90.55652.0%102+6.30.443+2.50.727+1.50.819+16.10.017
Fence and open+2.10.806-1.10.892+2.00.804-0.20.984-2.50.758-6.30.44345.6%57-3.90.640-4.80.551+9.70.218
Open+6.00.419+2.80.691+5.80.383+3.70.569+1.40.830-2.50.727+3.90.64049.5%99-0.90.892+13.60.044
Rectangle+6.90.331+3.70.579+6.80.289+4.70.454+2.40.711-1.50.819+4.80.551+0.90.89250.4%119+14.50.024
Octagon-7.60.272-10.80.100-7.80.218-9.90.108-12.20.054-16.10.017-9.70.218-13.60.044-14.50.02435.9%117
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 counted266
Win rate54.9%
Widest swing-29.9 pts
Survive correction1
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Lei Fei's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence67.9%+13.00.14528 ·
Low fence66.7%+11.80.22424 ·
Full fence60.6%+5.70.48133 ·
Breakable half fence59.1%+4.20.67922 ·
Breakable full fence58.3%+3.40.65536 ·
Single wall55.9%+1.00.90134 ·
Fence and open54.5%-0.30.98111 ·
Octagon50.0%-4.90.66618 ·
Rectangle50.0%-4.90.55432 ·
Open25.0%-29.9<0.00128 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 14.61 on 9 df, p 0.102

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence60.6%33+2.30.848-7.20.557+1.50.911-6.10.640+4.70.695+6.10.723+35.60.005+10.60.390+10.60.465
Breakable full fence-2.30.84858.3%36-9.50.435-0.80.955-8.30.515+2.50.836+3.80.824+33.30.008+8.30.491+8.30.561
Half fence+7.20.557+9.50.43567.9%28+8.80.522+1.20.927+12.00.335+13.30.435+42.90.001+17.90.162+17.90.226
Breakable half fence-1.50.911+0.80.955-8.80.52259.1%22-7.60.595+3.20.813+4.50.803+34.10.015+9.10.510+9.10.565
Low fence+6.10.640+8.30.515-1.20.927+7.60.59566.7%24+10.80.408+12.10.491+41.70.003+16.70.212+16.70.276
Single wall-4.70.695-2.50.836-12.00.335-3.20.813-10.80.40855.9%34+1.30.938+30.90.014+5.90.632+5.90.686
Fence and open-6.10.723-3.80.824-13.30.435-4.50.803-12.10.491-1.30.93854.5%11+29.60.078+4.50.795+4.50.812
Open-35.60.005-33.30.008-42.90.001-34.10.015-41.70.003-30.90.014-29.60.07825.0%28-25.00.047-25.00.082
Rectangle-10.60.390-8.30.491-17.90.162-9.10.510-16.70.212-5.90.632-4.50.795+25.00.04750.0%32+0.01.000
Octagon-10.60.465-8.30.561-17.90.226-9.10.565-16.70.276-5.90.686-4.50.812+25.00.082-0.01.00050.0%18
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.