VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lei Fei vs Vanessa

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,225
Win rate53.1%
Widest swing-6.9 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
Open59.1%+6.00.137137
Breakable full fence56.6%+3.50.435113
Half fence55.6%+2.40.551135
Breakable half fence54.2%+1.10.798131
Rectangle53.7%+0.60.894121
Octagon52.5%-0.60.882120
Low fence50.4%-2.70.541115
Full fence49.1%-4.10.378106
Single wall47.9%-5.30.229117
Fence and open46.3%-6.90.24667 ·
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 6.55 on 9 df, p 0.684

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.1%106-7.60.261-6.50.316-5.10.431-1.40.838+1.20.859+2.80.721-10.10.118-4.70.483-3.40.605
Breakable full fence+7.60.26156.6%113+1.10.864+2.40.702+6.20.348+8.80.183+10.40.178-2.50.692+2.90.654+4.10.526
Half fence+6.50.316-1.10.86455.6%135+1.40.824+5.10.419+7.70.223+9.30.213-3.60.552+1.80.768+3.10.625
Breakable half fence+5.10.431-2.40.702-1.40.82454.2%131+3.80.555+6.30.319+7.90.291-4.90.416+0.50.939+1.70.788
Low fence+1.40.838-6.20.348-5.10.419-3.80.55550.4%115+2.60.695+4.20.588-8.70.167-3.30.614-2.10.752
Single wall-1.20.859-8.80.183-7.70.223-6.30.319-2.60.69547.9%117+1.60.835-11.30.073-5.90.366-4.60.475
Fence and open-2.80.721-10.40.178-9.30.213-7.90.291-4.20.588-1.60.83546.3%67-12.80.083-7.50.328-6.20.414
Open+10.10.118+2.50.692+3.60.552+4.90.416+8.70.167+11.30.073+12.80.08359.1%137+5.40.382+6.60.286
Rectangle+4.70.483-2.90.654-1.80.768-0.50.939+3.30.614+5.90.366+7.50.328-5.40.38253.7%121+1.20.850
Octagon+3.40.605-4.10.526-3.10.625-1.70.788+2.10.752+4.60.475+6.20.414-6.60.286-1.20.85052.5%120
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 counted907
Win rate49.0%
Widest swing7.4 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
Open56.3%+7.40.113103
Breakable full fence53.2%+4.30.43177 ·
Breakable half fence51.9%+2.90.521108
Half fence50.0%+1.10.817108
Rectangle48.9%-0.10.99090
Octagon46.7%-2.20.65492
Full fence46.6%-2.40.67273 ·
Low fence45.6%-3.40.52979 ·
Fence and open43.1%-5.80.39251 ·
Single wall42.7%-6.30.25675 ·
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 5.79 on 9 df, p 0.761

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.6%73-6.70.414-3.40.651-5.30.486+1.00.901+3.90.632+3.40.705-9.70.203-2.30.769-0.20.983
Breakable full fence+6.70.41453.2%77+3.20.663+1.40.851+7.70.338+10.60.192+10.10.263-3.10.683+4.40.574+6.50.399
Half fence+3.40.651-3.20.66350.0%108-1.90.785+4.40.549+7.30.328+6.90.419-6.30.359+1.10.876+3.30.646
Breakable half fence+5.30.486-1.40.851+1.90.78551.9%108+6.30.396+9.20.221+8.70.305-4.50.516+3.00.678+5.10.471
Low fence-1.00.901-7.70.338-4.40.549-6.30.39645.6%79+2.90.717+2.40.785-10.70.151-3.30.666-1.20.878
Single wall-3.90.632-10.60.192-7.30.328-9.20.221-2.90.71742.7%75-0.50.958-13.60.072-6.20.425-4.10.599
Fence and open-3.40.705-10.10.263-6.90.419-8.70.305-2.40.785+0.50.95843.1%51-13.20.124-5.80.511-3.60.679
Open+9.70.203+3.10.683+6.30.359+4.50.516+10.70.151+13.60.072+13.20.12456.3%103+7.40.303+9.60.182
Rectangle+2.30.769-4.40.574-1.10.876-3.00.678+3.30.666+6.20.425+5.80.511-7.40.30348.9%90+2.10.772
Octagon+0.20.983-6.50.399-3.30.646-5.10.471+1.20.878+4.10.599+3.60.679-9.60.182-2.10.77246.7%92
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 counted318
Win rate65.1%
Widest swing12.7 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%+12.70.14827 ·
Octagon71.4%+6.30.46228 ·
Rectangle67.7%+2.60.74531 ·
Open67.7%+2.60.74134 ·
Breakable half fence65.2%+0.10.99023 ·
Breakable full fence63.9%-1.20.87236 ·
Low fence61.1%-4.00.59436 ·
Single wall57.1%-8.00.24642 ·
Fence and open56.2%-8.80.44616 ·
Full fence54.5%-10.50.17933 ·
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 5.98 on 9 df, p 0.742

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.5%33-9.30.430-23.20.061-10.70.425-6.60.581-2.60.822-1.70.910-13.10.271-13.20.280-16.90.175
Breakable full fence+9.30.43063.9%36-13.90.235-1.30.917+2.80.808+6.80.544+7.60.601-3.80.741-3.90.740-7.50.524
Half fence+23.20.061+13.90.23577.8%27+12.60.324+16.70.160+20.60.079+21.50.137+10.10.381+10.00.394+6.30.589
Breakable half fence+10.70.425+1.30.917-12.60.32465.2%23+4.10.750+8.10.525+9.00.571-2.40.849-2.50.846-6.20.634
Low fence+6.60.581-2.80.808-16.70.160-4.10.75061.1%36+4.00.722+4.90.742-6.50.568-6.60.572-10.30.389
Single wall+2.60.822-6.80.544-20.60.079-8.10.525-4.00.72257.1%42+0.90.951-10.50.349-10.60.357-14.30.226
Fence and open+1.70.910-7.60.601-21.50.137-9.00.571-4.90.742-0.90.95156.2%16-11.40.434-11.50.437-15.20.307
Open+13.10.271+3.80.741-10.10.381+2.40.849+6.50.568+10.50.349+11.40.43467.7%34-0.10.993-3.80.748
Rectangle+13.20.280+3.90.740-10.00.394+2.50.846+6.60.572+10.60.357+11.50.437+0.10.99367.7%31-3.70.759
Octagon+16.90.175+7.50.524-6.30.589+6.20.634+10.30.389+14.30.226+15.20.307+3.80.748+3.70.75971.4%28
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.