VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lion vs Vanessa

Lion vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lion wins 51.8% of 3,010 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 counted3,010
Win rate51.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-10.7 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
Open56.0%+4.20.116316
Octagon54.7%+2.90.287309
Half fence54.6%+2.80.332269
Single wall53.8%+1.90.474305
Rectangle52.4%+0.50.845296
Breakable half fence52.0%+0.20.942296
Breakable full fence50.5%-1.30.651279
Low fence49.6%-2.30.372345
Full fence48.9%-3.00.272307
Fence and open41.1%-10.70.008146
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 13.30 on 9 df, p 0.150

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.9%307-1.70.685-5.80.166-3.20.437-0.70.857-4.90.224+7.80.121-7.20.074-3.50.389-5.80.147
Breakable full fence+1.70.68550.5%279-4.10.336-1.50.721+1.00.809-3.20.435+9.40.064-5.50.182-1.80.661-4.20.314
Half fence+5.80.166+4.10.33654.6%269+2.60.533+5.10.211+0.90.833+13.60.008-1.40.740+2.30.587-0.00.991
Breakable half fence+3.20.437+1.50.721-2.60.53352.0%296+2.50.534-1.70.669+10.90.031-4.00.323-0.30.934-2.70.511
Low fence+0.70.857-1.00.809-5.10.211-2.50.53449.6%345-4.20.284+8.50.086-6.40.097-2.80.480-5.10.190
Single wall+4.90.224+3.20.435-0.90.833+1.70.669+4.20.28453.8%305+12.70.012-2.20.575+1.40.730-0.90.819
Fence and open-7.80.121-9.40.064-13.60.008-10.90.031-8.50.086-12.70.01241.1%146-14.90.003-11.30.026-13.60.007
Open+7.20.074+5.50.182+1.40.740+4.00.323+6.40.097+2.20.575+14.90.00356.0%316+3.60.365+1.30.740
Rectangle+3.50.389+1.80.661-2.30.587+0.30.934+2.80.480-1.40.730+11.30.026-3.60.36552.4%296-2.30.566
Octagon+5.80.147+4.20.314+0.00.991+2.70.511+5.10.190+0.90.819+13.60.007-1.30.740+2.30.56654.7%309
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 counted868
Win rate49.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.4 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
Open54.5%+5.20.26899
Low fence52.5%+3.20.54980
Rectangle51.0%+1.70.719100
Breakable full fence50.6%+1.30.80485
Single wall50.0%+0.70.89582
Full fence48.8%-0.60.91680
Half fence48.4%-0.90.88564 ·
Octagon46.0%-3.30.482100
Breakable half fence43.9%-5.40.30382
Fence and open41.7%-7.60.27648 ·
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 4.14 on 9 df, p 0.902

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.8%80-1.80.813+0.30.970+4.80.536-3.80.635-1.20.874+7.10.436-5.80.440-2.20.764+2.80.713
Breakable full fence+1.80.81350.6%85+2.10.795+6.70.387-1.90.806+0.60.939+8.90.322-4.00.592-0.40.955+4.60.534
Half fence-0.30.970-2.10.79548.4%64+4.50.585-4.10.628-1.60.851+6.80.476-6.10.446-2.60.749+2.40.760
Breakable half fence-4.80.536-6.70.387-4.50.58543.9%82-8.60.274-6.10.434+2.20.804-10.70.154-7.10.340-2.10.777
Low fence+3.80.635+1.90.806+4.10.628+8.60.27452.5%80+2.50.750+10.80.235-2.00.785+1.50.841+6.50.386
Single wall+1.20.874-0.60.939+1.60.851+6.10.434-2.50.75050.0%82+8.30.358-4.50.542-1.00.893+4.00.591
Fence and open-7.10.436-8.90.322-6.80.476-2.20.804-10.80.235-8.30.35841.7%48-12.90.143-9.30.287-4.30.620
Open+5.80.440+4.00.592+6.10.446+10.70.154+2.00.785+4.50.542+12.90.14354.5%99+3.50.616+8.60.228
Rectangle+2.20.764+0.40.955+2.60.749+7.10.340-1.50.841+1.00.893+9.30.287-3.50.61651.0%100+5.00.479
Octagon-2.80.713-4.60.534-2.40.760+2.10.777-6.50.386-4.00.591+4.30.620-8.60.228-5.00.47946.0%100
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 counted1,420
Win rate51.9%
Widest gap, 80+ matches8.2 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
Octagon60.1%+8.20.031153
Half fence57.5%+5.60.176134
Breakable half fence57.4%+5.50.181136
Single wall55.2%+3.30.399143
Open54.3%+2.40.513162
Rectangle53.2%+1.30.764126
Breakable full fence47.5%-4.40.272139
Full fence45.5%-6.40.120134
Low fence44.6%-7.20.052159
Fence and open38.9%-13.00.02372 ·
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 20.02 on 9 df, p 0.018

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.5%134-2.00.746-11.90.051-11.80.052+0.90.882-9.70.106+6.60.359-8.80.132-7.70.217-14.60.013
Breakable full fence+2.00.74647.5%139-10.00.099-9.90.101+2.80.625-7.80.192+8.60.234-6.80.237-5.70.355-12.70.030
Half fence+11.90.051+10.00.09957.5%134+0.10.985+12.80.029+2.20.710+18.60.011+3.10.588+4.30.487-2.70.647
Breakable half fence+11.80.052+9.90.101-0.10.98557.4%136+12.70.030+2.10.723+18.50.011+3.00.600+4.20.497-2.80.632
Low fence-0.90.882-2.80.625-12.80.029-12.70.03044.6%159-10.60.066+5.80.412-9.70.083-8.50.153-15.50.006
Single wall+9.70.106+7.80.192-2.20.710-2.10.723+10.60.06655.2%143+16.40.024+0.90.872+2.10.734-4.90.395
Fence and open-6.60.359-8.60.234-18.60.011-18.50.011-5.80.412-16.40.02438.9%72-15.40.029-14.30.053-21.20.003
Open+8.80.132+6.80.237-3.10.588-3.00.600+9.70.083-0.90.872+15.40.02954.3%162+1.10.846-5.80.298
Rectangle+7.70.217+5.70.355-4.30.487-4.20.497+8.50.153-2.10.734+14.30.053-1.10.84653.2%126-7.00.243
Octagon+14.60.013+12.70.030+2.70.647+2.80.632+15.50.006+4.90.395+21.20.003+5.80.298+7.00.24360.1%153
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 counted722
Win rate54.7%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-0.9 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
Open63.6%+8.90.16655 ·
Breakable full fence58.2%+3.50.59055 ·
Octagon55.4%+0.70.91956 ·
Single wall55.0%+0.30.95680
Half fence54.9%+0.20.96971 ·
Low fence54.7%+0.00.999106
Full fence53.8%-0.90.84493
Rectangle52.9%-1.90.74370 ·
Breakable half fence51.3%-3.40.52078 ·
Fence and open46.1%-8.60.37226 ·
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 3.32 on 9 df, p 0.950

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.8%93-4.40.601-1.20.882+2.50.746-1.00.893-1.20.871+7.60.492-9.90.240+0.90.909-1.60.850
Breakable full fence+4.40.60158.2%55+3.20.715+6.90.432+3.50.675+3.20.714+12.00.310-5.50.558+5.30.552+2.80.764
Half fence+1.20.882-3.20.71554.9%71+3.60.656+0.20.978-0.10.993+8.80.443-8.70.325+2.10.805-0.40.962
Breakable half fence-2.50.746-6.90.432-3.60.65651.3%78-3.40.644-3.70.640+5.10.651-12.40.157-1.60.848-4.10.641
Low fence+1.00.893-3.50.675-0.20.978+3.40.64454.7%106-0.30.969+8.60.433-8.90.277+1.90.809-0.60.938
Single wall+1.20.871-3.20.714+0.10.993+3.70.640+0.30.96955.0%80+8.80.432-8.60.317+2.10.793-0.40.967
Fence and open-7.60.492-12.00.310-8.80.443-5.10.651-8.60.433-8.80.43246.1%26-17.50.137-6.70.559-9.20.437
Open+9.90.240+5.50.558+8.70.325+12.40.157+8.90.277+8.60.317+17.50.13763.6%55+10.80.226+8.30.374
Rectangle-0.90.909-5.30.552-2.10.805+1.60.848-1.90.809-2.10.793+6.70.559-10.80.22652.9%70-2.50.780
Octagon+1.60.850-2.80.764+0.40.962+4.10.641+0.60.938+0.40.967+9.20.437-8.30.374+2.50.78055.4%56
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.