VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lion vs Shun

Lion vs Shun in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lion wins 53.3% of 4,674 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 counted4,674
Win rate53.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.5 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
Single wall57.4%+4.10.060465
Low fence56.8%+3.50.130428
Half fence55.7%+2.40.282458
Breakable full fence54.9%+1.60.477463
Rectangle54.8%+1.50.478476
Open53.8%+0.50.828478
Breakable half fence51.8%-1.50.488494
Fence and open51.7%-1.60.601261
Octagon48.9%-4.40.046466
Full fence47.8%-5.50.016429
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 16.72 on 9 df, p 0.053

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.8%429-7.10.035-7.90.019-4.00.221-9.00.008-9.60.004-3.90.316-6.00.072-7.00.034-1.10.733
Breakable full fence+7.10.03554.9%463-0.80.803+3.00.347-1.90.565-2.60.432+3.10.417+1.10.736+0.00.993+5.90.070
Half fence+7.90.019+0.80.80355.7%458+3.90.233-1.10.742-1.70.593+4.00.306+1.90.557+0.80.795+6.80.040
Breakable half fence+4.00.221-3.00.347-3.90.23351.8%494-5.00.132-5.60.082+0.10.980-1.90.544-3.00.348+2.90.370
Low fence+9.00.008+1.90.565+1.10.742+5.00.13256.8%428-0.60.846+5.10.196+3.00.363+1.90.557+7.80.019
Single wall+9.60.004+2.60.432+1.70.593+5.60.082+0.60.84657.4%465+5.70.139+3.60.259+2.60.424+8.50.009
Fence and open+3.90.316-3.10.417-4.00.306-0.10.980-5.10.196-5.70.13951.7%261-2.00.595-3.10.418+2.80.469
Open+6.00.072-1.10.736-1.90.557+1.90.544-3.00.363-3.60.259+2.00.59553.8%478-1.10.741+4.80.137
Rectangle+7.00.034-0.00.993-0.80.795+3.00.348-1.90.557-2.60.424+3.10.418+1.10.74154.8%476+5.90.070
Octagon+1.10.733-5.90.070-6.80.040-2.90.370-7.80.019-8.50.009-2.80.469-4.80.137-5.90.07048.9%466
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 counted1,986
Win rate54.1%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-9.9 pts
Survive correction1
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
Breakable full fence58.4%+4.30.170226
Half fence58.3%+4.20.235180
Low fence56.5%+2.40.491193
Single wall56.4%+2.20.529181
Rectangle55.8%+1.70.587233
Fence and open54.8%+0.70.88893
Breakable half fence54.8%+0.70.836208
Open52.0%-2.10.537196
Full fence50.9%-3.20.372171
Octagon44.2%-9.90.003199
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 12.99 on 9 df, p 0.163

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.9%171-7.50.135-7.50.161-3.90.446-5.60.285-5.50.303-4.00.538-1.20.824-4.90.327+6.70.201
Breakable full fence+7.50.13558.4%226+0.10.988+3.60.450+1.90.690+2.10.677+3.60.558+6.40.189+2.60.572+14.20.003
Half fence+7.50.161-0.10.98858.3%180+3.50.485+1.90.717+2.00.704+3.50.580+6.30.220+2.50.605+14.10.006
Breakable half fence+3.90.446-3.60.450-3.50.48554.8%208-1.70.737-1.50.760-0.00.996+2.80.577-1.00.835+10.60.033
Low fence+5.60.285-1.90.690-1.90.717+1.70.73756.5%193+0.10.981+1.60.794+4.40.380+0.70.888+12.30.015
Single wall+5.50.303-2.10.677-2.00.704+1.50.760-0.10.98156.4%181+1.50.811+4.30.401+0.60.909+12.10.018
Fence and open+4.00.538-3.60.558-3.50.580+0.00.996-1.60.794-1.50.81154.8%93+2.80.656-0.90.875+10.60.091
Open+1.20.824-6.40.189-6.30.220-2.80.577-4.40.380-4.30.401-2.80.65652.0%196-3.80.437+7.80.120
Rectangle+4.90.327-2.60.572-2.50.605+1.00.835-0.70.888-0.60.909+0.90.875+3.80.43755.8%233+11.60.016
Octagon-6.70.201-14.20.003-14.10.006-10.60.033-12.30.015-12.10.018-10.60.091-7.80.120-11.60.01644.2%199
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 counted2,084
Win rate54.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-10.4 pts
Survive correction1
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
Low fence62.2%+8.10.023180
Half fence58.1%+4.00.218215
Single wall56.6%+2.50.421233
Rectangle56.2%+2.00.575178
Open54.7%+0.50.866223
Breakable full fence53.9%-0.20.942191
Octagon52.6%-1.60.623213
Breakable half fence51.3%-2.90.346234
Fence and open50.4%-3.80.378127
Full fence43.8%-10.40.005169
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 16.04 on 9 df, p 0.066

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence43.8%169-10.10.055-14.30.005-7.50.137-18.4<0.001-12.90.011-6.60.259-10.90.032-12.40.021-8.80.088
Breakable full fence+10.10.05553.9%191-4.20.393+2.60.587-8.30.106-2.70.574+3.50.537-0.80.874-2.20.664+1.40.787
Half fence+14.30.005+4.20.39358.1%215+6.90.145-4.10.409+1.50.750+7.80.164+3.40.469+2.00.696+5.60.248
Breakable half fence+7.50.137-2.60.587-6.90.14551.3%234-10.90.026-5.40.244+0.90.872-3.40.463-4.90.324-1.30.783
Low fence+18.4<0.001+8.30.106+4.10.409+10.90.02662.2%180+5.60.254+11.80.039+7.50.129+6.00.245+9.60.054
Single wall+12.90.011+2.70.574-1.50.750+5.40.244-5.60.25456.6%233+6.30.255+1.90.676+0.50.924+4.10.388
Fence and open+6.60.259-3.50.537-7.80.164-0.90.872-11.80.039-6.30.25550.4%127-4.30.437-5.80.318-2.20.696
Open+10.90.032+0.80.874-3.40.469+3.40.463-7.50.129-1.90.676+4.30.43754.7%223-1.50.768+2.10.656
Rectangle+12.40.021+2.20.664-2.00.696+4.90.324-6.00.245-0.50.924+5.80.318+1.50.76856.2%178+3.60.477
Octagon+8.80.088-1.40.787-5.60.248+1.30.783-9.60.054-4.10.388+2.20.696-2.10.656-3.60.47752.6%213
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 counted604
Win rate47.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches1.9 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
Single wall64.7%+17.20.01051 ·
Open55.9%+8.40.17359 ·
Octagon51.9%+4.30.50454 ·
Full fence49.4%+1.90.69489
Fence and open48.8%+1.30.86741 ·
Rectangle47.7%+0.20.97665 ·
Breakable half fence42.3%-5.20.43152 ·
Breakable full fence41.3%-6.20.38046 ·
Low fence40.0%-7.50.24255 ·
Half fence39.7%-7.80.18863 ·
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: 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 12.24 on 9 df, p 0.200

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence49.4%89+8.10.369+9.80.234+7.10.413+9.40.269-15.30.081+0.70.944-6.50.439+1.80.830-2.40.780
Breakable full fence-8.10.36941.3%46+1.60.865-1.00.920+1.30.894-23.40.021-7.50.484-14.60.137-6.40.505-10.60.292
Half fence-9.80.234-1.60.86539.7%63-2.60.776-0.30.972-25.00.008-9.10.360-16.20.072-8.00.361-12.20.187
Breakable half fence-7.10.413+1.00.920+2.60.77642.3%52+2.30.808-22.40.023-6.50.533-13.60.152-5.40.561-9.50.325
Low fence-9.40.269-1.30.894+0.30.972-2.30.80840.0%55-24.70.011-8.80.391-15.90.089-7.70.398-11.80.214
Single wall+15.30.081+23.40.021+25.00.008+22.40.023+24.70.01164.7%51+15.90.124+8.80.349+17.00.067+12.90.182
Fence and open-0.70.944+7.50.484+9.10.360+6.50.533+8.80.391-15.90.12448.8%41-7.20.481+1.10.913-3.10.767
Open+6.50.439+14.60.137+16.20.072+13.60.152+15.90.089-8.80.349+7.20.48155.9%59+8.20.359+4.10.664
Rectangle-1.80.830+6.40.505+8.00.361+5.40.561+7.70.398-17.00.067-1.10.913-8.20.35947.7%65-4.20.651
Octagon+2.40.780+10.60.292+12.20.187+9.50.325+11.80.214-12.90.182+3.10.767-4.10.664+4.20.65151.9%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.