VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Lion vs Wolf

Lion vs Wolf in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Lion wins 49.6% of 5,597 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 counted5,597
Win rate49.6%
Widest gap, 80+ matches3.5 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
Breakable half fence53.0%+3.50.094526
Full fence50.5%+1.00.597633
Fence and open50.2%+0.70.840223
Half fence50.0%+0.40.822592
Rectangle49.7%+0.10.953616
Single wall49.5%-0.10.957548
Breakable full fence49.1%-0.50.820560
Octagon48.9%-0.70.742540
Open48.1%-1.50.467549
Low fence46.8%-2.80.178526
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 5.15 on 9 df, p 0.821

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.5%633+1.40.618+0.60.847-2.50.399+3.80.199+1.10.706+0.30.933+2.50.398+0.90.756+1.70.570
Breakable full fence-1.40.61849.1%560-0.90.762-3.90.195+2.30.441-0.30.908-1.10.778+1.00.734-0.60.846+0.20.942
Half fence-0.60.847+0.90.76250.0%592-3.00.310+3.20.280+0.60.853-0.20.954+1.90.518+0.30.910+1.10.709
Breakable half fence+2.50.399+3.90.195+3.00.31053.0%526+6.30.042+3.60.239+2.80.480+5.00.104+3.40.257+4.20.175
Low fence-3.80.199-2.30.441-3.20.280-6.30.04246.8%526-2.70.379-3.50.387-1.30.665-2.90.327-2.10.488
Single wall-1.10.706+0.30.908-0.60.853-3.60.239+2.70.37949.5%548-0.80.846+1.40.651-0.20.940+0.60.852
Fence and open-0.30.933+1.10.778+0.20.954-2.80.480+3.50.387+0.80.84650.2%223+2.10.590+0.50.888+1.30.737
Open-2.50.398-1.00.734-1.90.518-5.00.104+1.30.665-1.40.651-2.10.59048.1%549-1.60.588-0.80.791
Rectangle-0.90.756+0.60.846-0.30.910-3.40.257+2.90.327+0.20.940-0.50.888+1.60.58849.7%616+0.80.790
Octagon-1.70.570-0.20.942-1.10.709-4.20.175+2.10.488-0.60.852-1.30.737+0.80.791-0.80.79048.9%540
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 counted2,880
Win rate47.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches-5.8 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
Breakable half fence52.5%+5.20.078257
Full fence48.8%+1.50.563330
Half fence48.7%+1.40.597310
Open48.6%+1.30.656278
Breakable full fence47.7%+0.40.886302
Single wall46.8%-0.50.847293
Rectangle46.2%-1.10.689303
Octagon46.0%-1.30.648289
Low fence41.8%-5.50.061261
Fence and open41.5%-5.80.200118
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 8.71 on 9 df, p 0.465

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.8%330+1.10.781+0.10.984-3.70.368+7.00.089+2.00.613+7.30.175+0.20.956+2.60.516+2.80.492
Breakable full fence-1.10.78147.7%302-1.00.799-4.80.253+5.90.159+0.90.821+6.20.255-0.90.832+1.50.716+1.70.686
Half fence-0.10.984+1.00.79948.7%310-3.80.365+7.00.097+1.90.631+7.20.183+0.10.971+2.50.535+2.70.510
Breakable half fence+3.70.368+4.80.253+3.80.36552.5%257+10.80.014+5.80.177+11.00.048+4.00.359+6.30.136+6.50.129
Low fence-7.00.089-5.90.159-7.00.097-10.80.01441.8%261-5.00.238+0.20.965-6.80.113-4.40.289-4.30.315
Single wall-2.00.613-0.90.821-1.90.631-5.80.177+5.00.23846.8%293+5.20.335-1.80.666+0.60.892+0.70.859
Fence and open-7.30.175-6.20.255-7.20.183-11.00.048-0.20.965-5.20.33541.5%118-7.00.199-4.70.386-4.50.408
Open-0.20.956+0.90.832-0.10.971-4.00.359+6.80.113+1.80.666+7.00.19948.6%278+2.40.570+2.50.545
Rectangle-2.60.516-1.50.716-2.50.535-6.30.136+4.40.289-0.60.892+4.70.386-2.40.57046.2%303+0.20.964
Octagon-2.80.492-1.70.686-2.70.510-6.50.129+4.30.315-0.70.859+4.50.408-2.50.545-0.20.96446.0%289
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 counted2,384
Win rate52.8%
Widest gap, 80+ matches7.5 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
Fence and open60.2%+7.50.14293
Full fence56.3%+3.50.233254
Single wall54.3%+1.60.625219
Breakable half fence54.2%+1.40.646225
Octagon52.6%-0.20.959230
Low fence52.5%-0.20.936238
Half fence52.0%-0.70.812244
Rectangle52.0%-0.80.772281
Breakable full fence50.5%-2.30.465224
Open48.4%-4.40.146242
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 6.26 on 9 df, p 0.714

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence56.3%254+5.80.200+4.20.341+2.10.648+3.80.400+2.00.669-3.90.514+8.00.076+4.30.314+3.70.415
Breakable full fence-5.80.20050.5%224-1.60.729-3.80.423-2.10.656-3.90.412-9.80.112+2.10.651-1.50.736-2.20.645
Half fence-4.20.341+1.60.72952.0%244-2.20.638-0.50.917-2.30.622-8.20.179+3.70.414+0.10.983-0.60.903
Breakable half fence-2.10.648+3.80.423+2.20.63854.2%225+1.70.714-0.10.980-6.00.327+5.90.204+2.30.612+1.60.730
Low fence-3.80.400+2.10.656+0.50.917-1.70.71452.5%238-1.80.697-7.70.206+4.20.360+0.60.898-0.10.985
Single wall-2.00.669+3.90.412+2.30.622+0.10.980+1.80.69754.3%219-5.90.339+6.00.199+2.40.597+1.70.713
Fence and open+3.90.514+9.80.112+8.20.179+6.00.327+7.70.206+5.90.33960.2%93+11.90.052+8.30.166+7.60.214
Open-8.00.076-2.10.651-3.70.414-5.90.204-4.20.360-6.00.199-11.90.05248.4%242-3.60.410-4.30.355
Rectangle-4.30.314+1.50.736-0.10.983-2.30.612-0.60.898-2.40.597-8.30.166+3.60.41052.0%281-0.70.883
Octagon-3.70.415+2.20.645+0.60.903-1.60.730+0.10.985-1.70.713-7.60.214+4.30.355+0.70.88352.6%230
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 counted333
Win rate46.2%
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
Rectangle62.5%+16.20.05232 ·
Fence and open58.3%+12.10.39212 ·
Breakable full fence52.9%+6.70.40934 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%+3.80.59244 ·
Octagon47.6%+1.40.89621 ·
Half fence47.4%+1.10.88338 ·
Low fence44.4%-1.80.84527 ·
Single wall41.7%-4.60.56036 ·
Open41.4%-4.90.58229 ·
Full fence32.6%-13.60.03949 ·
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 9.24 on 9 df, p 0.416

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence32.6%49-20.30.065-14.70.163-17.40.089-11.80.308-9.00.394-25.70.100-8.70.437-29.90.008-15.00.235
Breakable full fence+20.30.06552.9%34+5.60.637+2.90.797+8.50.510+11.30.345-5.40.747+11.60.360-9.60.432+5.30.701
Half fence+14.70.163-5.60.63747.4%38-2.60.812+2.90.816+5.70.622-11.00.508+6.00.625-15.10.206-0.20.985
Breakable half fence+17.40.089-2.90.797+2.60.81250.0%44+5.60.649+8.30.457-8.30.609+8.60.470-12.50.279+2.40.857
Low fence+11.80.308-8.50.510-2.90.816-5.60.64944.4%27+2.80.825-13.90.423+3.10.817-18.10.165-3.20.827
Single wall+9.00.394-11.30.345-5.70.622-8.30.457-2.80.82541.7%36-16.70.316+0.30.981-20.80.086-6.00.662
Fence and open+25.70.100+5.40.747+11.00.508+8.30.609+13.90.423+16.70.31658.3%12+16.90.322-4.20.800+10.70.554
Open+8.70.437-11.60.360-6.00.625-8.60.470-3.10.817-0.30.981-16.90.32241.4%29-21.10.099-6.20.661
Rectangle+29.90.008+9.60.432+15.10.206+12.50.279+18.10.165+20.80.086+4.20.800+21.10.09962.5%32+14.90.285
Octagon+15.00.235-5.30.701+0.20.985-2.40.857+3.20.827+6.00.662-10.70.554+6.20.661-14.90.28547.6%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.