VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lion vs Sarah

Lion vs Sarah in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lion wins 50.3% of 4,795 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 counted4,795
Win rate50.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-4.1 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lion's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Open54.0%+3.70.082494
Rectangle52.2%+1.80.386510
Single wall51.9%+1.50.496457
Full fence51.2%+0.90.691441
Breakable half fence50.6%+0.30.902494
Half fence50.6%+0.20.922443
Breakable full fence47.6%-2.70.205479
Octagon47.2%-3.20.152458
Fence and open47.0%-3.40.294232
Low fence46.3%-4.10.048521
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 11.57 on 9 df, p 0.239

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.2%441+3.60.269+0.70.839+0.60.845+5.00.123-0.60.854+4.30.293-2.80.392-0.90.780+4.10.221
Breakable full fence-3.60.26947.6%479-3.00.368-3.00.348+1.30.671-4.30.193+0.60.877-6.50.044-4.60.152+0.40.893
Half fence-0.70.839+3.00.36850.6%443-0.10.990+4.30.182-1.30.697+3.60.377-3.50.286-1.60.624+3.40.307
Breakable half fence-0.60.845+3.00.348+0.10.99050.6%494+4.30.166-1.20.699+3.60.362-3.40.279-1.60.623+3.50.288
Low fence-5.00.123-1.30.671-4.30.182-4.30.16646.3%521-5.60.080-0.70.854-7.80.013-5.90.058-0.90.777
Single wall+0.60.854+4.30.193+1.30.697+1.20.699+5.60.08051.9%457+4.90.226-2.20.499-0.30.926+4.70.155
Fence and open-4.30.293-0.60.877-3.60.377-3.60.362+0.70.854-4.90.22647.0%232-7.10.076-5.20.191-0.20.965
Open+2.80.392+6.50.044+3.50.286+3.40.279+7.80.013+2.20.499+7.10.07654.0%494+1.90.548+6.90.034
Rectangle+0.90.780+4.60.152+1.60.624+1.60.623+5.90.058+0.30.926+5.20.191-1.90.54852.2%510+5.00.121
Octagon-4.10.221-0.40.893-3.40.307-3.50.288+0.90.777-4.70.155+0.20.965-6.90.034-5.00.12147.2%458
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 counted2,212
Win rate48.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.0 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lion's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Open52.4%+3.60.252225
Breakable half fence52.0%+3.20.315227
Rectangle50.8%+2.00.508246
Single wall50.5%+1.70.619200
Octagon50.0%+1.20.733192
Full fence47.9%-1.00.766209
Breakable full fence47.6%-1.20.733191
Half fence47.1%-1.70.604208
Fence and open44.5%-4.30.357110
Low fence42.8%-6.00.027292
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 8.24 on 9 df, p 0.510

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.9%209+0.20.968+0.70.881-4.10.388+5.00.264-2.60.592+3.30.574-4.60.338-3.00.528-2.10.667
Breakable full fence-0.20.96847.6%191+0.50.916-4.30.377+4.80.296-2.90.572+3.10.604-4.80.329-3.20.511-2.40.645
Half fence-0.70.881-0.50.91647.1%208-4.90.311+4.30.340-3.40.494+2.60.662-5.30.268-3.70.432-2.90.564
Breakable half fence+4.10.388+4.30.377+4.90.31152.0%227+9.20.038+1.50.760+7.40.200-0.50.922+1.20.799+2.00.686
Low fence-5.00.264-4.80.296-4.30.340-9.20.03842.8%292-7.70.093-1.70.754-9.60.030-8.00.064-7.20.120
Single wall+2.60.592+2.90.572+3.40.494-1.50.760+7.70.09350.5%200+6.00.315-1.90.689-0.30.948+0.50.921
Fence and open-3.30.574-3.10.604-2.60.662-7.40.200+1.70.754-6.00.31544.5%110-7.90.174-6.30.274-5.50.361
Open+4.60.338+4.80.329+5.30.268+0.50.922+9.60.030+1.90.689+7.90.17452.4%225+1.60.723+2.40.619
Rectangle+3.00.528+3.20.511+3.70.432-1.20.799+8.00.064+0.30.948+6.30.274-1.60.72350.8%246+0.80.866
Octagon+2.10.667+2.40.645+2.90.564-2.00.686+7.20.120-0.50.921+5.50.361-2.40.619-0.80.86650.0%192
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 counted2,067
Win rate50.0%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-8.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lion's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Full fence54.3%+4.20.207199
Single wall53.9%+3.80.262195
Open53.8%+3.80.233225
Half fence53.4%+3.40.305204
Rectangle51.0%+1.00.774204
Low fence50.6%+0.60.879174
Fence and open47.8%-2.20.66692
Breakable half fence47.3%-2.70.414205
Breakable full fence44.1%-6.00.052236
Octagon41.5%-8.50.009212
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 15.10 on 9 df, p 0.088

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.3%199+10.20.034+0.80.866+7.00.162+3.70.476+0.40.933+6.40.306+0.50.919+3.30.508+12.80.010
Breakable full fence-10.20.03444.1%236-9.40.050-3.20.494-6.50.192-9.80.043-3.80.539-9.70.037-6.90.148+2.60.585
Half fence-0.80.866+9.40.05053.4%204+6.10.216+2.90.579-0.40.934+5.60.372-0.30.943+2.50.620+11.90.015
Breakable half fence-7.00.162+3.20.494-6.10.21647.3%205-3.20.527-6.50.192-0.50.935-6.50.181-3.70.459+5.80.233
Low fence-3.70.476+6.50.192-2.90.579+3.20.52750.6%174-3.30.530+2.70.670-3.20.525-0.40.937+9.10.075
Single wall-0.40.933+9.80.043+0.40.934+6.50.192+3.30.53053.9%195+6.00.341+0.10.989+2.90.567+12.30.013
Fence and open-6.40.306+3.80.539-5.60.372+0.50.935-2.70.670-6.00.34147.8%92-6.00.336-3.10.615+6.30.307
Open-0.50.919+9.70.037+0.30.943+6.50.181+3.20.525-0.10.989+6.00.33653.8%225+2.80.562+12.30.010
Rectangle-3.30.508+6.90.148-2.50.620+3.70.459+0.40.937-2.90.567+3.10.615-2.80.56251.0%204+9.50.053
Octagon-12.80.010-2.60.585-11.90.015-5.80.233-9.10.075-12.30.013-6.30.307-12.30.010-9.50.05341.5%212
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 counted516
Win rate58.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Lion's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Open63.6%+5.50.44044 ·
Breakable full fence63.5%+5.30.41252 ·
Rectangle61.7%+3.50.55660 ·
Octagon59.3%+1.10.86054 ·
Breakable half fence56.5%-1.70.77462 ·
Half fence54.8%-3.30.70131 ·
Full fence54.5%-3.60.66533 ·
Fence and open53.3%-4.80.58230 ·
Low fence50.9%-7.20.25055 ·
Single wall50.0%-8.10.16662 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 4.70 on 9 df, p 0.859

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence54.5%33-8.90.414-0.30.981-1.90.859+3.60.741+4.50.673+1.20.923-9.10.421-7.10.504-4.70.666
Breakable full fence+8.90.41463.5%52+8.60.437+7.00.447+12.60.190+13.50.149+10.10.368-0.20.986+1.80.845+4.20.657
Half fence+0.30.981-8.60.43754.8%31-1.60.883+3.90.726+4.80.660+1.50.906-8.80.444-6.80.530-4.40.691
Breakable half fence+1.90.859-7.00.447+1.60.88356.5%62+5.50.548+6.50.472+3.10.778-7.20.458-5.20.558-2.80.760
Low fence-3.60.741-12.60.190-3.90.726-5.50.54850.9%55+0.90.922-2.40.831-12.70.204-10.80.245-8.30.381
Single wall-4.50.673-13.50.149-4.80.660-6.50.472-0.90.92250.0%62-3.30.764-13.60.164-11.70.195-9.30.318
Fence and open-1.20.923-10.10.368-1.50.906-3.10.778+2.40.831+3.30.76453.3%30-10.30.375-8.30.449-5.90.599
Open+9.10.421+0.20.986+8.80.444+7.20.458+12.70.204+13.60.164+10.30.37563.6%44+2.00.838+4.40.658
Rectangle+7.10.504-1.80.845+6.80.530+5.20.558+10.80.245+11.70.195+8.30.449-2.00.83861.7%60+2.40.793
Octagon+4.70.666-4.20.657+4.40.691+2.80.760+8.30.381+9.30.318+5.90.599-4.40.658-2.40.79359.3%54
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.