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.
Mystic Rings
Habanero
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 86.00%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 10,016×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Sweet Alchemy 2
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 10,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Sweets
VS
Mystic Shaman
Habanero
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 86.00%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 10,016×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Mystic Rings vs Sweet Alchemy 2
- 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: 86.00% against 96.20% — Sweet Alchemy 2 is 10.20 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 10,016× and 10,000×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Very high.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Sweet Alchemy 2 returns more in theory over the long run, while Mystic Rings reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Mystic Rings vs Mystic Shaman
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 86.00% against 86.00%.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 10,016× and 10,016×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Very high.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
