VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Shun vs Wolf

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted2,175
Win rate51.5%
Widest swing8.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Shun's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Open59.9%+8.30.020177
Breakable half fence56.7%+5.20.103224
Breakable full fence55.5%+4.00.196236
Single wall53.6%+2.00.533209
Octagon51.5%-0.00.990200
Fence and open51.4%-0.10.981105
Low fence51.1%-0.40.901219
Rectangle50.2%-1.30.682219
Half fence46.5%-5.00.135202
Full fence46.1%-5.40.056269
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 14.31 on 9 df, p 0.112

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence46.1%269-9.40.035-0.40.925-10.60.019-5.00.267-7.50.104-5.30.354-13.80.004-4.10.364-5.40.247
Breakable full fence+9.40.03555.5%236+9.00.061-1.20.797+4.40.351+1.90.685+4.10.485-4.40.373+5.30.260+4.00.403
Half fence+0.40.925-9.00.06146.5%202-10.20.036-4.60.345-7.10.153-4.90.416-13.40.009-3.70.449-5.00.319
Breakable half fence+10.60.019+1.20.797+10.20.03656.7%224+5.60.241+3.10.516+5.30.371-3.20.520+6.50.172+5.20.284
Low fence+5.00.267-4.40.351+4.60.345-5.60.24151.1%219-2.50.612-0.30.961-8.80.082+0.90.848-0.40.942
Single wall+7.50.104-1.90.685+7.10.153-3.10.516+2.50.61253.6%209+2.20.718-6.30.214+3.40.487+2.10.672
Fence and open+5.30.354-4.10.485+4.90.416-5.30.371+0.30.961-2.20.71851.4%105-8.50.166+1.20.840-0.10.991
Open+13.80.004+4.40.373+13.40.009+3.20.520+8.80.082+6.30.214+8.50.16659.9%177+9.70.055+8.40.102
Rectangle+4.10.364-5.30.260+3.70.449-6.50.172-0.90.848-3.40.487-1.20.840-9.70.05550.2%219-1.30.795
Octagon+5.40.247-4.00.403+5.00.319-5.20.284+0.40.942-2.10.672+0.10.991-8.40.102+1.30.79551.5%200
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
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 counted1,970
Win rate50.7%
Widest swing8.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Shun's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Open59.0%+8.30.028161
Breakable half fence56.3%+5.60.082213
Breakable full fence53.6%+2.90.360222
Single wall53.1%+2.40.481192
Octagon51.5%+0.70.840173
Low fence50.5%-0.20.946206
Fence and open47.7%-3.00.56788
Rectangle47.6%-3.10.372191
Full fence45.8%-4.90.107240
Half fence45.8%-5.00.168177
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 13.27 on 9 df, p 0.151

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence45.8%240-7.80.095+0.10.989-10.50.026-4.70.327-7.30.132-1.90.761-13.20.010-1.80.708-5.60.260
Breakable full fence+7.80.09553.6%222+7.80.120-2.70.567+3.10.519+0.50.922+5.90.350-5.40.293+6.00.227+2.10.670
Half fence-0.10.989-7.80.12045.8%177-10.60.037-4.70.356-7.40.158-2.00.763-13.20.015-1.90.718-5.70.288
Breakable half fence+10.50.026+2.70.567+10.60.03756.3%213+5.80.230+3.20.516+8.60.173-2.70.605+8.70.081+4.90.337
Low fence+4.70.327-3.10.519+4.70.356-5.80.23050.5%206-2.60.598+2.80.665-8.50.104+2.90.572-1.00.852
Single wall+7.30.132-0.50.922+7.40.158-3.20.516+2.60.59853.1%192+5.40.402-5.90.268+5.50.283+1.70.748
Fence and open+1.90.761-5.90.350+2.00.763-8.60.173-2.80.665-5.40.40247.7%88-11.30.087+0.10.990-3.70.570
Open+13.20.010+5.40.293+13.20.015+2.70.605+8.50.104+5.90.268+11.30.08759.0%161+11.40.033+7.60.165
Rectangle+1.80.708-6.00.227+1.90.718-8.70.081-2.90.572-5.50.283-0.10.990-11.40.03347.6%191-3.80.469
Octagon+5.60.260-2.10.670+5.70.288-4.90.337+1.00.852-1.70.748+3.70.570-7.60.165+3.80.46951.5%173
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
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 counted205
Win rate59.5%
Widest swing26.2 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

Shun's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable full fence85.7%+26.20.03914 ·
Fence and open70.6%+11.10.33117 ·
Open68.8%+9.20.43316 ·
Rectangle67.9%+8.30.33328 ·
Breakable half fence63.6%+4.10.77511 ·
Low fence61.5%+2.00.87813 ·
Single wall58.8%-0.70.95217 ·
Half fence52.0%-7.50.41425 ·
Octagon51.9%-7.70.38427 ·
Full fence48.3%-11.20.18329 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 9.04 on 9 df, p 0.433

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence48.3%29-37.40.019-3.70.785-15.40.385-13.30.426-10.50.489-22.30.141-20.50.186-19.60.134-3.60.789
Breakable full fence+37.40.01985.7%14+33.70.035+22.10.199+24.20.152+26.90.101+15.10.316+17.00.273+17.90.215+33.90.033
Half fence+3.70.785-33.70.03552.0%25-11.60.517-9.50.575-6.80.663-18.60.228-16.80.288-15.90.239+0.10.991
Breakable half fence+15.40.385-22.10.199+11.60.51763.6%11+2.10.916+4.80.799-7.00.700-5.10.782-4.20.801+11.80.508
Low fence+13.30.426-24.20.152+9.50.575-2.10.91661.5%13+2.70.880-9.10.602-7.20.684-6.30.691+9.70.564
Single wall+10.50.489-26.90.101+6.80.663-4.80.799-2.70.88058.8%17-11.80.473-9.90.554-9.00.539+7.00.651
Fence and open+22.30.141-15.10.316+18.60.228+7.00.700+9.10.602+11.80.47370.6%17+1.80.909+2.70.848+18.70.218
Open+20.50.186-17.00.273+16.80.288+5.10.782+7.20.684+9.90.554-1.80.90968.8%16+0.90.951+16.90.278
Rectangle+19.60.134-17.90.215+15.90.239+4.20.801+6.30.691+9.00.539-2.70.848-0.90.95167.9%28+16.00.226
Octagon+3.60.789-33.90.033-0.10.991-11.80.508-9.70.564-7.00.651-18.70.218-16.90.278-16.00.22651.9%27
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
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.