VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lei Fei vs Vanessa

Lei Fei vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lei Fei wins 51.8% of 2,183 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 counted2,183
Win rate51.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.5 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
Breakable full fence59.3%+7.50.023204
Breakable half fence56.8%+5.00.121213
Open53.0%+1.30.681230
Octagon52.5%+0.70.820221
Half fence51.2%-0.60.853248
Low fence50.8%-1.00.774193
Rectangle49.0%-2.80.411202
Fence and open48.5%-3.20.503103
Full fence48.0%-3.80.233221
Single wall46.1%-5.60.069232
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 12.39 on 9 df, p 0.192

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.0%221-11.30.019-3.20.483-8.80.065-2.80.568+1.80.694-0.60.923-5.10.281-1.10.830-4.50.341
Breakable full fence+11.30.01959.3%204+8.10.085+2.50.604+8.50.087+13.20.006+10.80.073+6.30.189+10.30.037+6.80.157
Half fence+3.20.483-8.10.08551.2%248-5.60.229+0.40.928+5.10.265+2.70.649-1.80.688+2.20.643-1.30.782
Breakable half fence+8.80.065-2.50.604+5.60.22956.8%213+6.00.223+10.70.024+8.30.167+3.80.426+7.80.112+4.30.366
Low fence+2.80.568-8.50.087-0.40.928-6.00.22350.8%193+4.70.339+2.20.714-2.30.642+1.80.725-1.70.728
Single wall-1.80.694-13.20.006-5.10.265-10.70.024-4.70.33946.1%232-2.40.682-6.90.137-2.90.548-6.40.175
Fence and open+0.60.923-10.80.073-2.70.649-8.30.167-2.20.714+2.40.68248.5%103-4.50.448-0.50.939-4.00.508
Open+5.10.281-6.30.189+1.80.688-3.80.426+2.30.642+6.90.137+4.50.44853.0%230+4.00.403+0.60.906
Rectangle+1.10.830-10.30.037-2.20.643-7.80.112-1.80.725+2.90.548+0.50.939-4.00.40349.0%202-3.50.475
Octagon+4.50.341-6.80.157+1.30.782-4.30.366+1.70.728+6.40.175+4.00.508-0.60.906+3.50.47552.5%221
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 counted753
Win rate48.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-8.7 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 full fence64.3%+15.60.00670 ·
Breakable half fence58.9%+10.20.11356 ·
Octagon52.4%+3.70.47882
Fence and open50.0%+1.30.89626 ·
Low fence50.0%+1.30.83066 ·
Half fence44.8%-4.00.40896
Rectangle44.1%-4.70.45559 ·
Full fence44.0%-4.80.33091
Open40.9%-7.80.18366 ·
Single wall40.0%-8.70.07790
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 15.88 on 9 df, p 0.070

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.0%91-20.30.010-0.80.908-15.00.078-6.00.454+4.00.590-6.00.585+3.00.703-0.10.989-8.50.265
Breakable full fence+20.30.01064.3%70+19.50.013+5.40.538+14.30.092+24.30.002+14.30.203+23.40.006+20.20.021+11.80.140
Half fence+0.80.908-19.50.01344.8%96-14.10.093-5.20.514+4.80.509-5.20.636+3.90.624+0.70.930-7.70.309
Breakable half fence+15.00.078-5.40.538+14.10.09358.9%56+8.90.324+18.90.026+8.90.448+18.00.047+14.90.111+6.50.452
Low fence+6.00.454-14.30.092+5.20.514-8.90.32450.0%66+10.00.214+0.01.000+9.10.294+5.90.507-2.40.768
Single wall-4.00.590-24.30.002-4.80.509-18.90.026-10.00.21440.0%90-10.00.363-0.90.909-4.10.622-12.40.102
Fence and open+6.00.585-14.30.203+5.20.636-8.90.448-0.01.000+10.00.36350.0%26+9.10.428+5.90.613-2.40.828
Open-3.00.703-23.40.006-3.90.624-18.00.047-9.10.294+0.90.909-9.10.42840.9%66-3.20.721-11.50.163
Rectangle+0.10.989-20.20.021-0.70.930-14.90.111-5.90.507+4.10.622-5.90.613+3.20.72144.1%59-8.40.327
Octagon+8.50.265-11.80.140+7.70.309-6.50.452+2.40.768+12.40.102+2.40.828+11.50.163+8.40.32752.4%82
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 counted1,031
Win rate49.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.7 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
Open54.5%+5.30.211123
Breakable half fence52.9%+3.70.386123
Breakable full fence52.3%+3.10.54286
Half fence51.3%+2.10.628115
Rectangle49.5%+0.30.940105
Full fence47.7%-1.50.77186
Low fence47.7%-1.50.77186
Octagon45.2%-4.00.391104
Fence and open44.1%-5.10.41959 ·
Single wall43.5%-5.70.25292
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 5.21 on 9 df, p 0.815

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.7%86-4.70.542-3.60.611-5.20.462+0.01.000+4.20.574+3.60.669-6.80.333-1.90.799+2.50.733
Breakable full fence+4.70.54252.3%86+1.00.886-0.50.941+4.70.542+8.80.238+8.30.328-2.10.760+2.80.700+7.10.327
Half fence+3.60.611-1.00.88651.3%115-1.60.812+3.60.611+7.80.263+7.20.366-3.20.625+1.80.792+6.10.366
Breakable half fence+5.20.462+0.50.941+1.60.81252.9%123+5.20.462+9.40.174+8.80.268-1.60.798+3.30.617+7.70.251
Low fence-0.01.000-4.70.542-3.60.611-5.20.46247.7%86+4.20.574+3.60.669-6.80.333-1.90.799+2.50.733
Single wall-4.20.574-8.80.238-7.80.263-9.40.174-4.20.57443.5%92-0.60.943-11.00.111-6.00.396-1.70.810
Fence and open-3.60.669-8.30.328-7.20.366-8.80.268-3.60.669+0.60.94344.1%59-10.40.189-5.50.502-1.10.890
Open+6.80.333+2.10.760+3.20.625+1.60.798+6.80.333+11.00.111+10.40.18954.5%123+5.00.456+9.30.164
Rectangle+1.90.799-2.80.700-1.80.792-3.30.617+1.90.799+6.00.396+5.50.502-5.00.45649.5%105+4.30.531
Octagon-2.50.733-7.10.327-6.10.366-7.70.251-2.50.733+1.70.810+1.10.890-9.30.164-4.30.53145.2%104
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 counted399
Win rate64.2%
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
Octagon74.3%+10.10.19135 ·
Open68.3%+4.10.56041 ·
Breakable half fence67.7%+3.50.65834 ·
Half fence67.6%+3.40.65037 ·
Breakable full fence64.6%+0.40.94848 ·
Single wall62.0%-2.20.73350 ·
Fence and open61.1%-3.00.78218 ·
Low fence58.5%-5.60.42841 ·
Full fence56.8%-7.30.28244 ·
Rectangle55.3%-8.90.22938 ·
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 5.19 on 9 df, p 0.817

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.8%44-7.80.446-10.80.321-10.80.330-1.70.873-5.20.609-4.30.756-11.50.275+1.60.887-17.50.107
Breakable full fence+7.80.44664.6%48-3.00.774-3.10.773+6.00.558+2.60.791+3.50.794-3.70.712+9.30.380-9.70.347
Half fence+10.80.321+3.00.77467.6%37-0.10.994+9.00.410+5.60.592+6.50.637-0.70.945+12.30.274-6.70.531
Breakable half fence+10.80.330+3.10.773+0.10.99467.7%34+9.10.417+5.70.596+6.50.637-0.60.952+12.40.282-6.60.543
Low fence+1.70.873-6.00.558-9.00.410-9.10.41758.5%41-3.50.737-2.60.853-9.80.359+3.30.769-15.80.149
Single wall+5.20.609-2.60.791-5.60.592-5.70.596+3.50.73762.0%50+0.90.947-6.30.532+6.70.524-12.30.236
Fence and open+4.30.756-3.50.794-6.50.637-6.50.637+2.60.853-0.90.94761.1%18-7.20.592+5.80.680-13.20.322
Open+11.50.275+3.70.712+0.70.945+0.60.952+9.80.359+6.30.532+7.20.59268.3%41+13.00.233-6.00.566
Rectangle-1.60.887-9.30.380-12.30.274-12.40.282-3.30.769-6.70.524-5.80.680-13.00.23355.3%38-19.00.090
Octagon+17.50.107+9.70.347+6.70.531+6.60.543+15.80.149+12.30.236+13.20.322+6.00.566+19.00.09074.3%35
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.