VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lion vs Taka

Lion vs Taka in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lion wins 44.5% of 1,423 decided matches (Low, mid and high combined, 2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18). Stage by stage, 0 of 9 tested stage gaps survive correction.

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,423
Win rate44.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-6.4 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
Octagon50.4%+5.80.150137
Open49.6%+5.10.212135
Half fence47.8%+3.20.390157
Full fence47.7%+3.20.405153
Breakable half fence46.4%+1.90.638140
Low fence46.1%+1.50.713128
Rectangle44.2%-0.40.930129
Breakable full fence42.3%-2.20.583137
Single wall38.1%-6.40.109139
Fence and open36.4%-8.20.13777 ·
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 9.20 on 9 df, p 0.419

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.7%153+5.40.358-0.10.992+1.30.826+1.60.787+9.60.099+11.30.102-1.90.745+3.50.554-2.60.652
Breakable full fence-5.40.35842.3%137-5.40.350-4.10.493-3.80.538+4.20.476+6.00.392-7.30.227-1.90.761-8.00.183
Half fence+0.10.992+5.40.35047.8%157+1.30.817+1.70.778+9.60.095+11.40.099-1.90.751+3.60.545-2.60.657
Breakable half fence-1.30.826+4.10.493-1.30.81746.4%140+0.30.956+8.30.161+10.10.152-3.20.595+2.20.712-3.90.512
Low fence-1.60.787+3.80.538-1.70.778-0.30.95646.1%128+8.00.188+9.70.172-3.50.566+1.90.759-4.30.487
Single wall-9.60.099-4.20.476-9.60.095-8.30.161-8.00.18838.1%139+1.80.797-11.50.055-6.10.314-12.20.041
Fence and open-11.30.102-6.00.392-11.40.099-10.10.152-9.70.172-1.80.79736.4%77-13.30.062-7.80.270-14.00.048
Open+1.90.745+7.30.227+1.90.751+3.20.595+3.50.566+11.50.055+13.30.06249.6%135+5.40.376-0.70.903
Rectangle-3.50.554+1.90.761-3.60.545-2.20.712-1.90.759+6.10.314+7.80.270-5.40.37644.2%129-6.20.313
Octagon+2.60.652+8.00.183+2.60.657+3.90.512+4.30.487+12.20.041+14.00.048+0.70.903+6.20.31350.4%137
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 counted585
Win rate46.8%
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
Octagon54.1%+7.30.23061 ·
Fence and open50.0%+3.20.73128 ·
Half fence49.2%+2.40.67467 ·
Open49.1%+2.30.71657 ·
Single wall49.0%+2.20.74451 ·
Breakable full fence48.1%+1.30.83954 ·
Full fence47.4%+0.50.93357 ·
Low fence45.3%-1.60.81253 ·
Rectangle44.3%-2.60.67061 ·
Breakable half fence38.0%-8.80.19050 ·
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: 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 3.51 on 9 df, p 0.941

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence47.4%57-0.80.934-1.90.834+9.40.329+2.10.827-1.60.864-2.60.819-1.80.851+3.10.735-6.70.465
Breakable full fence+0.80.93448.1%54-1.10.904+10.20.297+2.90.766-0.90.929-1.90.874-1.00.918+3.90.677-6.00.524
Half fence+1.90.834+1.10.90449.2%67+11.20.226+4.00.665+0.20.980-0.80.947+0.10.988+5.00.572-4.80.584
Breakable half fence-9.40.329-10.20.297-11.20.22638.0%50-7.30.454-11.00.264-12.00.303-11.10.247-6.30.505-16.10.091
Low fence-2.10.827-2.90.766-4.00.665+7.30.45445.3%53-3.70.703-4.70.686-3.80.687+1.00.913-8.80.348
Single wall+1.60.864+0.90.929-0.20.980+11.00.264+3.70.70349.0%51-1.00.934-0.10.991+4.80.615-5.10.592
Fence and open+2.60.819+1.90.874+0.80.947+12.00.303+4.70.686+1.00.93450.0%28+0.90.939+5.70.614-4.10.719
Open+1.80.851+1.00.918-0.10.988+11.10.247+3.80.687+0.10.991-0.90.93949.1%57+4.90.597-5.00.589
Rectangle-3.10.735-3.90.677-5.00.572+6.30.505-1.00.913-4.80.615-5.70.614-4.90.59744.3%61-9.80.277
Octagon+6.70.465+6.00.524+4.80.584+16.10.091+8.80.348+5.10.592+4.10.719+5.00.589+9.80.27754.1%61
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 counted584
Win rate43.7%
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
Breakable half fence51.4%+7.70.15872 ·
Full fence50.8%+7.10.22165 ·
Half fence49.2%+5.60.33765 ·
Octagon49.1%+5.40.39455 ·
Open48.0%+4.30.51850 ·
Low fence47.1%+3.40.60951 ·
Rectangle45.6%+2.00.77746 ·
Breakable full fence37.1%-6.60.27062 ·
Fence and open30.0%-13.70.12130 ·
Single wall29.1%-14.60.02255 ·
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: 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 13.09 on 9 df, p 0.159

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.8%65+13.70.121+1.50.861-0.60.942+3.70.692+21.70.016+20.80.058+2.80.768+5.10.595+1.70.855
Breakable full fence-13.70.12137.1%62-12.10.168-14.30.097-10.00.285+8.00.359+7.10.503-10.90.245-8.60.371-12.00.191
Half fence-1.50.861+12.10.16849.2%65-2.20.801+2.20.816+20.10.025+19.20.079+1.20.896+3.60.710+0.10.988
Breakable half fence+0.60.942+14.30.097+2.20.80151.4%72+4.30.636+22.30.012+21.40.048+3.40.713+5.70.543+2.30.797
Low fence-3.70.692+10.00.285-2.20.816-4.30.63647.1%51+18.00.057+17.10.131-0.90.925+1.40.890-2.00.834
Single wall-21.70.016-8.00.359-20.10.025-22.30.012-18.00.05729.1%55-0.90.930-18.90.046-16.60.085-20.00.032
Fence and open-20.80.058-7.10.503-19.20.079-21.40.048-17.10.131+0.90.93030.0%30-18.00.113-15.70.172-19.10.089
Open-2.80.768+10.90.245-1.20.896-3.40.713+0.90.925+18.90.046+18.00.11348.0%50+2.40.818-1.10.911
Rectangle-5.10.595+8.60.371-3.60.710-5.70.543-1.40.890+16.60.085+15.70.172-2.40.81845.6%46-3.40.730
Octagon-1.70.855+12.00.191-0.10.988-2.30.797+2.00.834+20.00.032+19.10.089+1.10.911+3.40.73049.1%55
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 counted254
Win rate41.3%
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
Open53.6%+12.20.16328 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%+8.70.43918 ·
Low fence45.8%+4.50.63824 ·
Breakable full fence42.9%+1.50.88321 ·
Octagon42.9%+1.50.88321 ·
Full fence41.9%+0.60.94331 ·
Rectangle40.9%-0.40.96622 ·
Half fence40.0%-1.30.88625 ·
Single wall36.4%-5.00.53433 ·
Fence and open26.3%-15.00.16719 ·
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 4.56 on 9 df, p 0.871

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence41.9%31-0.90.947+1.90.884-8.10.584-3.90.773+5.60.648+15.60.264-11.60.371+1.00.940-0.90.947
Breakable full fence+0.90.94742.9%21+2.90.845-7.10.656-3.00.841+6.50.633+16.50.273-10.70.458+1.90.897+0.01.000
Half fence-1.90.884-2.90.84540.0%25-10.00.515-5.80.680+3.60.777+13.70.343-13.60.323-0.90.949-2.90.845
Breakable half fence+8.10.584+7.10.656+10.00.51550.0%18+4.20.789+13.60.344+23.70.138-3.60.813+9.10.565+7.10.656
Low fence+3.90.773+3.00.841+5.80.680-4.20.78945.8%24+9.50.472+19.50.189-7.70.578+4.90.736+3.00.841
Single wall-5.60.648-6.50.633-3.60.777-13.60.344-9.50.47236.4%33+10.00.457-17.20.178-4.50.734-6.50.633
Fence and open-15.60.264-16.50.273-13.70.343-23.70.138-19.50.189-10.00.45726.3%19-27.20.064-14.60.326-16.50.273
Open+11.60.371+10.70.458+13.60.323+3.60.813+7.70.578+17.20.178+27.20.06453.6%28+12.70.374+10.70.458
Rectangle-1.00.940-1.90.897+0.90.949-9.10.565-4.90.736+4.50.734+14.60.326-12.70.37440.9%22-1.90.897
Octagon+0.90.947-0.01.000+2.90.845-7.10.656-3.00.841+6.50.633+16.50.273-10.70.458+1.90.89742.9%21
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.