VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

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

Taka vs Vanessa

Taka vs Vanessa in Virtua Fighter 5 REVO v1.10: Taka wins 52.5% of 1,117 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 counted1,117
Win rate52.5%
Widest gap, 80+ matches5.9 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Taka's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall58.3%+5.90.150132
Low fence55.6%+3.20.469115
Octagon53.9%+1.40.767104
Open53.8%+1.30.776106
Rectangle53.8%+1.30.81180
Breakable full fence51.9%-0.50.899129
Full fence50.0%-2.50.560124
Fence and open48.8%-3.60.62743 ·
Breakable half fence48.8%-3.70.386123
Half fence47.7%-4.80.296107
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 4.70 on 9 df, p 0.860

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%124-1.90.758+2.30.723+1.20.848-5.70.382-8.30.181+1.20.895-3.80.568-3.80.601-3.90.563
Breakable full fence+1.90.75851.9%129+4.30.513+3.20.616-3.70.561-6.40.299+3.10.725-1.80.779-1.80.799-1.90.772
Half fence-2.30.723-4.30.51347.7%107-1.10.866-8.00.234-10.70.100-1.20.896-6.10.372-6.10.410-6.20.369
Breakable half fence-1.20.848-3.20.616+1.10.86648.8%123-6.90.289-9.60.126-0.10.995-5.00.451-5.00.489-5.10.447
Low fence+5.70.382+3.70.561+8.00.234+6.90.28955.6%115-2.70.671+6.80.444+1.90.779+1.90.793+1.80.789
Single wall+8.30.181+6.40.299+10.70.100+9.60.126+2.70.67158.3%132+9.50.276+4.60.481+4.60.514+4.50.490
Fence and open-1.20.895-3.10.725+1.20.896+0.10.995-6.80.444-9.50.27648.8%43-4.90.585-4.90.603-5.00.580
Open+3.80.568+1.80.779+6.10.372+5.00.451-1.90.779-4.60.481+4.90.58553.8%106+0.00.997-0.10.992
Rectangle+3.80.601+1.80.799+6.10.410+5.00.489-1.90.793-4.60.514+4.90.603-0.00.99753.8%80-0.10.990
Octagon+3.90.563+1.90.772+6.20.369+5.10.447-1.80.789-4.50.490+5.00.580+0.10.992+0.10.99053.9%104
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 counted431
Win rate51.3%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Taka's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Low fence63.3%+12.00.07549 ·
Fence and open63.2%+11.90.28919 ·
Open62.1%+10.80.22929 ·
Rectangle60.0%+8.70.36925 ·
Single wall54.7%+3.40.59353 ·
Octagon51.4%+0.10.99237 ·
Breakable full fence47.1%-4.20.52151 ·
Full fence44.4%-6.80.28354 ·
Breakable half fence43.3%-8.00.15467 ·
Half fence40.6%-10.70.21032 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 10.79 on 9 df, p 0.290

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence44.4%54-2.60.788+3.80.729+1.20.898-18.80.056-10.30.288-18.70.161-17.60.126-15.60.198-6.90.517
Breakable full fence+2.60.78847.1%51+6.40.566+3.80.683-16.20.103-7.70.435-16.10.231-15.00.196-12.90.289-4.30.691
Half fence-3.80.729-6.40.56640.6%32-2.70.802-22.60.046-14.10.208-22.50.120-21.40.094-19.40.147-10.70.373
Breakable half fence-1.20.898-3.80.683+2.70.80243.3%67-20.00.033-11.40.213-19.90.126-18.80.091-16.70.153-8.10.429
Low fence+18.80.056+16.20.103+22.60.046+20.00.03363.3%49+8.60.381+0.10.993+1.20.916+3.30.784+11.90.268
Single wall+10.30.288+7.70.435+14.10.208+11.40.213-8.60.38154.7%53-8.40.524-7.30.520-5.30.661+3.40.753
Fence and open+18.70.161+16.10.231+22.50.120+19.90.126-0.10.993+8.40.52463.2%19+1.10.939+3.20.831+11.80.400
Open+17.60.126+15.00.196+21.40.094+18.80.091-1.20.916+7.30.520-1.10.93962.1%29+2.10.876+10.70.384
Rectangle+15.60.198+12.90.289+19.40.147+16.70.153-3.30.784+5.30.661-3.20.831-2.10.87660.0%25+8.70.502
Octagon+6.90.517+4.30.691+10.70.373+8.10.429-11.90.268-3.40.753-11.80.400-10.70.384-8.70.50251.4%37
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 counted447
Win rate49.4%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Taka's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Half fence51.2%+1.70.81243 ·
Single wall51.2%+1.70.81243 ·
Breakable full fence50.0%+0.60.93252 ·
Breakable half fence50.0%+0.60.93942 ·
Full fence50.0%+0.60.93548 ·
Low fence50.0%+0.60.93942 ·
Octagon48.8%-0.60.93443 ·
Rectangle48.6%-0.80.92037 ·
Open47.2%-2.30.72553 ·
Fence and open29.4%-20.00.09217 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 2.91 on 9 df, p 0.968

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence50.0%48+0.01.000-1.20.912+0.01.000+0.01.000-1.20.912+20.60.142+2.80.776+1.40.902+1.20.912
Breakable full fence-0.01.00050.0%52-1.20.910+0.01.000+0.01.000-1.20.910+20.60.138+2.80.772+1.40.900+1.20.910
Half fence+1.20.912+1.20.91051.2%43+1.20.915+1.20.915+0.01.000+21.80.127+4.00.697+2.50.823+2.30.829
Breakable half fence-0.01.000-0.01.000-1.20.91550.0%42+0.01.000-1.20.915+20.60.149+2.80.784+1.40.905+1.20.915
Low fence-0.01.000-0.01.000-1.20.915-0.01.00050.0%42-1.20.915+20.60.149+2.80.784+1.40.905+1.20.915
Single wall+1.20.912+1.20.910-0.01.000+1.20.915+1.20.91551.2%43+21.80.127+4.00.697+2.50.823+2.30.829
Fence and open-20.60.142-20.60.138-21.80.127-20.60.149-20.60.149-21.80.12729.4%17-17.80.198-19.20.184-19.40.171
Open-2.80.776-2.80.772-4.00.697-2.80.784-2.80.784-4.00.697+17.80.19847.2%53-1.50.890-1.70.871
Rectangle-1.40.902-1.40.900-2.50.823-1.40.905-1.40.905-2.50.823+19.20.184+1.50.89048.6%37-0.20.987
Octagon-1.20.912-1.20.910-2.30.829-1.20.915-1.20.915-2.30.829+19.40.171+1.70.871+0.20.98748.8%43
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 counted239
Win rate60.2%
Widest gap, 80+ matches—
Survive correction—
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/10/18

Where it was fought

Taka's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageGap from usualWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall72.2%+12.00.11136 ·
Breakable half fence71.4%+11.20.37814 ·
Octagon66.7%+6.40.49824 ·
Breakable full fence65.4%+5.10.57126 ·
Full fence63.6%+3.40.73322 ·
Open58.3%-1.90.84024 ·
Fence and open57.1%-3.10.8657 ·
Rectangle55.6%-4.70.67218 ·
Half fence50.0%-10.20.20332 ·
Low fence50.0%-10.20.27924 ·
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

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

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.34 on 9 df, p 0.705

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence63.6%22-1.70.900+13.60.322-7.80.629+13.60.351-8.60.493+6.50.758+5.30.713+8.10.604-3.00.829
Breakable full fence+1.70.90065.4%26+15.40.239-6.00.697+15.40.271-6.80.564+8.20.687+7.00.608+9.80.510-1.30.924
Half fence-13.60.322-15.40.23950.0%32-21.40.177+0.01.000-22.20.060-7.10.732-8.30.536-5.60.706-16.70.212
Breakable half fence+7.80.629+6.00.697+21.40.17771.4%14+21.40.197-0.80.955+14.30.513+13.10.420+15.90.358+4.80.761
Low fence-13.60.351-15.40.271-0.01.000-21.40.19750.0%24-22.20.080-7.10.739-8.30.562-5.60.721-16.70.242
Single wall+8.60.493+6.80.564+22.20.060+0.80.955+22.20.08072.2%36+15.10.427+13.90.264+16.70.221+5.50.645
Fence and open-6.50.758-8.20.687+7.10.732-14.30.513+7.10.739-15.10.42757.1%7-1.20.955+1.60.943-9.50.643
Open-5.30.713-7.00.608+8.30.536-13.10.420+8.30.562-13.90.264+1.20.95558.3%24+2.80.857-8.30.551
Rectangle-8.10.604-9.80.510+5.60.706-15.90.358+5.60.721-16.70.221-1.60.943-2.80.85755.6%18-11.10.463
Octagon+3.00.829+1.30.924+16.70.212-4.80.761+16.70.242-5.50.645+9.50.643+8.30.551+11.10.46366.7%24
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.