VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lei Fei vs Taka

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted572
Win rate51.4%
Widest swing-8.0 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
Breakable full fence59.0%+7.60.20861 ·
Full fence59.0%+7.60.20861 ·
Rectangle57.9%+6.50.30157 ·
Octagon56.2%+4.80.34980
Open47.1%-4.30.51651 ·
Fence and open46.7%-4.70.71015 ·
Half fence45.6%-5.80.35757 ·
Low fence44.4%-7.00.24263 ·
Single wall43.5%-7.90.26246 ·
Breakable half fence43.4%-8.00.22153 ·
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 9.54 on 9 df, p 0.389

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence59.0%61+0.01.000+13.40.145+15.60.096+14.60.105+15.50.111+12.30.387+12.00.206+1.10.902+2.80.742
Breakable full fence-0.01.00059.0%61+13.40.145+15.60.096+14.60.105+15.50.111+12.30.387+12.00.206+1.10.902+2.80.742
Half fence-13.40.145-13.40.14545.6%57+2.20.815+1.20.898+2.10.828-1.10.942-1.40.881-12.30.190-10.60.219
Breakable half fence-15.60.096-15.60.096-2.20.81543.4%53-1.00.910-0.10.993-3.30.822-3.70.708-14.50.129-12.80.147
Low fence-14.60.105-14.60.105-1.20.898+1.00.91044.4%63+1.00.920-2.20.876-2.60.781-13.40.141-11.80.161
Single wall-15.50.111-15.50.111-2.10.828+0.10.993-1.00.92043.5%46-3.20.829-3.60.724-14.40.146-12.80.167
Fence and open-12.30.387-12.30.387+1.10.942+3.30.822+2.20.876+3.20.82946.7%15-0.40.979-11.20.436-9.60.494
Open-12.00.206-12.00.206+1.40.881+3.70.708+2.60.781+3.60.724+0.40.97947.1%51-10.80.260-9.20.304
Rectangle-1.10.902-1.10.902+12.30.190+14.50.129+13.40.141+14.40.146+11.20.436+10.80.26057.9%57+1.60.848
Octagon-2.80.742-2.80.742+10.60.219+12.80.147+11.80.161+12.80.167+9.60.494+9.20.304-1.60.84856.2%80
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 counted403
Win rate52.1%
Widest swing-12.5 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
Breakable full fence64.6%+12.50.06548 ·
Full fence61.1%+9.00.25736 ·
Octagon58.5%+6.40.31853 ·
Rectangle57.6%+5.50.51233 ·
Single wall50.0%-2.10.79136 ·
Open47.4%-4.70.53938 ·
Breakable half fence46.0%-6.20.43137 ·
Low fence44.2%-7.90.27143 ·
Fence and open41.7%-10.40.46212 ·
Half fence39.6%-12.50.06448 ·
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 11.00 on 9 df, p 0.276

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence61.1%36-3.50.744+21.50.051+15.20.194+16.90.134+11.10.343+19.40.240+13.70.236+3.50.765+2.60.805
Breakable full fence+3.50.74464.6%48+25.00.014+18.60.086+20.40.051+14.60.180+22.90.147+17.20.109+7.00.524+6.10.530
Half fence-21.50.051-25.00.01439.6%48-6.40.556-4.60.657-10.40.341-2.10.895-7.80.469-18.00.111-18.90.058
Breakable half fence-15.20.194-18.60.086+6.40.55646.0%37+1.80.875-4.00.729+4.30.796-1.40.902-11.60.331-12.50.240
Low fence-16.90.134-20.40.051+4.60.657-1.80.87544.2%43-5.80.606+2.50.876-3.20.774-13.40.247-14.30.163
Single wall-11.10.343-14.60.180+10.40.341+4.00.729+5.80.60650.0%36+8.30.617+2.60.821-7.60.528-8.50.429
Fence and open-19.40.240-22.90.147+2.10.895-4.30.796-2.50.876-8.30.61741.7%12-5.70.730-15.90.344-16.80.290
Open-13.70.236-17.20.109+7.80.469+1.40.902+3.20.774-2.60.821+5.70.73047.4%38-10.20.390-11.10.294
Rectangle-3.50.765-7.00.524+18.00.111+11.60.331+13.40.247+7.60.528+15.90.344+10.20.39057.6%33-0.90.933
Octagon-2.60.805-6.10.530+18.90.058+12.50.240+14.30.163+8.50.429+16.80.290+11.10.294+0.90.93358.5%53
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 counted169
Win rate49.7%
Widest swing-29.7 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
Half fence77.8%+28.10.0839 ·
Fence and open66.7%+17.00.5533 ·
Rectangle58.3%+8.60.36124 ·
Full fence56.0%+6.30.49525 ·
Octagon51.9%+2.10.80827 ·
Open46.1%-3.50.79013 ·
Low fence45.0%-4.70.65420 ·
Breakable full fence38.5%-11.20.39913 ·
Breakable half fence37.5%-12.20.30516 ·
Single wall20.0%-29.70.05310 ·
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 9.72 on 9 df, p 0.374

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.0%25+17.50.305-21.80.249+18.50.248+11.00.463+36.00.053-10.70.724+9.80.564-2.30.869+4.20.764
Breakable full fence-17.50.30538.5%13-39.30.069+1.00.958-6.50.710+18.50.340-28.20.375-7.70.691-19.90.248-13.40.427
Half fence+21.80.249+39.30.06977.8%9+40.30.053+32.80.101+57.80.012+11.10.700+31.60.138+19.40.301+25.90.172
Breakable half fence-18.50.248-1.00.958-40.30.05337.5%16-7.50.650+17.50.347-29.20.348-8.70.638-20.80.197-14.30.362
Low fence-11.00.463+6.50.710-32.80.101+7.50.65045.0%20+25.00.180-21.70.484-1.10.948-13.30.378-6.80.642
Single wall-36.00.053-18.50.340-57.80.012-17.50.347-25.00.18020.0%10-46.70.125-26.10.192-38.30.041-31.90.082
Fence and open+10.70.724+28.20.375-11.10.700+29.20.348+21.70.484+46.70.12566.7%3+20.50.522+8.30.782+14.80.626
Open-9.80.564+7.70.691-31.60.138+8.70.638+1.10.948+26.10.192-20.50.52246.1%13-12.20.478-5.70.736
Rectangle+2.30.869+19.90.248-19.40.301+20.80.197+13.30.378+38.30.041-8.30.782+12.20.47858.3%24+6.50.642
Octagon-4.20.764+13.40.427-25.90.172+14.30.362+6.80.642+31.90.082-14.80.626+5.70.736-6.50.64251.9%27
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.