Structure comparison

Two games, side by side

The structural difference between two games, assembled from published specifications only. Nothing here forecasts a result or recommends either game.

Habanero

Play’n GO

Pragmatic Play

Reading the difference

Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.

Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
They come from different studios — Habanero and Play’n GO — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 94.00% against 96.31% — Chambers of Ancients is 2.31 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Both cap out at roughly the same place: 20,000× and 20,000×.
Both carry the same volatility label: Very high.

Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
They come from different studios — Habanero and Pragmatic Play — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 94.00% against 95.01% — Cash Chips is 1.01 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 2.0×: 20,000× against 10,000×, with Arctic Wonders higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Both carry the same volatility label: Very high.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Cash Chips returns more in theory over the long run, while Arctic Wonders reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

Add to the comparison (up to four)