VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lei Fei vs Sarah

Lei Fei vs Sarah in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lei Fei wins 48.9% of 3,470 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 counted3,470
Win rate48.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches4.5 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
Single wall53.3%+4.50.079345
Low fence52.2%+3.40.192341
Fence and open50.9%+2.00.585177
Octagon48.6%-0.20.930405
Breakable half fence48.6%-0.30.916352
Open48.0%-0.80.751327
Rectangle47.7%-1.10.670331
Breakable full fence47.5%-1.30.605343
Full fence46.5%-2.40.346355
Half fence45.7%-3.20.214348
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 7.29 on 9 df, p 0.607

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.5%355-1.00.783+0.80.834-2.10.576-5.70.131-6.80.070-4.40.342-1.50.689-1.20.742-2.20.551
Breakable full fence+1.00.78347.5%343+1.80.629-1.10.780-4.70.221-5.80.127-3.30.472-0.50.899-0.20.956-1.10.760
Half fence-0.80.834-1.80.62945.7%348-2.90.444-6.50.087-7.60.044-5.20.263-2.30.546-2.00.594-3.00.419
Breakable half fence+2.10.576+1.10.780+2.90.44448.6%352-3.60.341-4.80.209-2.30.623+0.60.882+0.80.825-0.10.986
Low fence+5.70.131+4.70.221+6.50.087+3.60.34152.2%341-1.10.766+1.40.770+4.20.279+4.50.247+3.60.333
Single wall+6.80.070+5.80.127+7.60.044+4.80.209+1.10.76653.3%345+2.50.590+5.30.168+5.60.146+4.70.200
Fence and open+4.40.342+3.30.472+5.20.263+2.30.623-1.40.770-2.50.59050.9%177+2.80.543+3.10.504+2.20.624
Open+1.50.689+0.50.899+2.30.546-0.60.882-4.20.279-5.30.168-2.80.54348.0%327+0.30.943-0.60.865
Rectangle+1.20.742+0.20.956+2.00.594-0.80.825-4.50.247-5.60.146-3.10.504-0.30.94347.7%331-0.90.806
Octagon+2.20.551+1.10.760+3.00.419+0.10.986-3.60.333-4.70.200-2.20.624+0.60.865+0.90.80648.6%405
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 counted1,481
Win rate49.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-12.7 pts
Survive correction1
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
Low fence56.8%+7.70.057139
Breakable half fence52.0%+2.80.507127
Breakable full fence51.9%+2.70.466158
Single wall51.6%+2.50.517153
Octagon50.3%+1.10.755163
Fence and open48.9%-0.30.95588
Full fence48.1%-1.10.779158
Open47.0%-2.20.553166
Half fence46.6%-2.60.511146
Rectangle36.5%-12.70.003126
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 13.46 on 9 df, p 0.143

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.1%158-3.80.500+1.50.790-3.90.516-8.70.133-3.50.533-0.80.909+1.10.841+11.60.050-2.20.693
Breakable full fence+3.80.50051.9%158+5.30.354-0.10.991-4.90.394+0.30.963+3.00.648+4.90.377+15.40.010+1.60.775
Half fence-1.50.790-5.30.35446.6%146-5.40.374-10.20.083-5.00.382-2.30.734-0.40.942+10.10.093-3.70.512
Breakable half fence+3.90.516+0.10.991+5.40.37452.0%127-4.90.426+0.30.956+3.10.654+5.00.398+15.50.013+1.70.779
Low fence+8.70.133+4.90.394+10.20.083+4.90.42656.8%139+5.20.373+8.00.241+9.80.087+20.3<0.001+6.50.257
Single wall+3.50.533-0.30.963+5.00.382-0.30.956-5.20.37351.6%153+2.80.679+4.60.407+15.10.011+1.30.814
Fence and open+0.80.909-3.00.648+2.30.734-3.10.654-8.00.241-2.80.67948.9%88+1.90.776+12.30.071-1.40.827
Open-1.10.841-4.90.377+0.40.942-5.00.398-9.80.087-4.60.407-1.90.77647.0%166+10.50.073-3.30.547
Rectangle-11.60.050-15.40.010-10.10.093-15.50.013-20.3<0.001-15.10.011-12.30.071-10.50.07336.5%126-13.80.019
Octagon+2.20.693-1.60.775+3.70.512-1.70.779-6.50.257-1.30.814+1.40.827+3.30.547+13.80.01950.3%163
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 counted1,712
Win rate46.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches6.1 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
Rectangle53.0%+6.10.080185
Single wall52.2%+5.30.159161
Fence and open49.3%+2.40.68769 ·
Low fence49.2%+2.30.522179
Breakable half fence46.0%-0.90.785200
Open45.2%-1.70.677135
Octagon44.8%-2.10.528203
Full fence44.2%-2.70.471165
Breakable full fence43.0%-3.90.294165
Half fence42.5%-4.40.232167
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 8.38 on 9 df, p 0.496

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.2%165+1.20.824+1.70.751-1.80.737-4.90.361-7.90.152-5.00.481-0.90.870-8.70.103-0.60.911
Breakable full fence-1.20.82443.0%165+0.50.924-3.00.570-6.10.254-9.10.098-6.20.381-2.20.708-9.90.063-1.80.730
Half fence-1.70.751-0.50.92442.5%167-3.50.503-6.70.215-9.70.080-6.80.342-2.70.642-10.50.050-2.30.655
Breakable half fence+1.80.737+3.00.570+3.50.50346.0%200-3.20.538-6.20.243-3.30.638+0.80.883-7.00.172+1.20.813
Low fence+4.90.361+6.10.254+6.70.215+3.20.53849.2%179-3.00.579-0.10.987+4.00.485-3.80.467+4.30.397
Single wall+7.90.152+9.10.098+9.70.080+6.20.243+3.00.57952.2%161+2.90.687+7.00.231-0.80.882+7.30.164
Fence and open+5.00.481+6.20.381+6.80.342+3.30.638+0.10.987-2.90.68749.3%69+4.10.580-3.70.600+4.50.522
Open+0.90.870+2.20.708+2.70.642-0.80.883-4.00.485-7.00.231-4.10.58045.2%135-7.80.169+0.40.948
Rectangle+8.70.103+9.90.063+10.50.050+7.00.172+3.80.467+0.80.882+3.70.600+7.80.16953.0%185+8.10.109
Octagon+0.60.911+1.80.730+2.30.655-1.20.813-4.30.397-7.30.164-4.50.522-0.40.948-8.10.10944.8%203
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 counted277
Win rate59.2%
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
Rectangle70.0%+10.80.30820 ·
Open69.2%+10.00.27526 ·
Single wall67.7%+8.50.30531 ·
Fence and open65.0%+5.80.58420 ·
Octagon61.5%+2.30.74939 ·
Half fence57.1%-2.10.79035 ·
Breakable half fence52.0%-7.20.44225 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%-9.20.38420 ·
Full fence50.0%-9.20.26032 ·
Low fence47.8%-11.40.24623 ·
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 6.99 on 9 df, p 0.638

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%32+0.01.000-7.10.558-2.00.881+2.20.874-17.70.153-15.00.289-19.20.139-20.00.156-11.50.329
Breakable full fence-0.01.00050.0%20-7.10.609-2.00.894+2.20.887-17.70.205-15.00.337-19.20.185-20.00.197-11.50.396
Half fence+7.10.558+7.10.60957.1%35+5.10.693+9.30.487-10.60.376-7.90.567-12.10.335-12.90.345-4.40.701
Breakable half fence+2.00.881+2.00.894-5.10.69352.0%25+4.20.773-15.70.230-13.00.380-17.20.208-18.00.221-9.50.451
Low fence-2.20.874-2.20.887-9.30.487-4.20.77347.8%23-19.90.141-17.20.258-21.40.128-22.20.142-13.70.293
Single wall+17.70.153+17.70.205+10.60.376+15.70.230+19.90.14167.7%31+2.70.839-1.50.904-2.30.865+6.20.591
Fence and open+15.00.289+15.00.337+7.90.567+13.00.380+17.20.258-2.70.83965.0%20-4.20.762-5.00.736+3.50.795
Open+19.20.139+19.20.185+12.10.335+17.20.208+21.40.128+1.50.904+4.20.76269.2%26-0.80.955+7.70.525
Rectangle+20.00.156+20.00.197+12.90.345+18.00.221+22.20.142+2.30.865+5.00.736+0.80.95570.0%20+8.50.521
Octagon+11.50.329+11.50.396+4.40.701+9.50.451+13.70.293-6.20.591-3.50.795-7.70.525-8.50.52161.5%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.