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.
Wild Flow
Habanero
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 86.00%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 153,902×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Wealth
VS
Arctic Hunt
Habanero
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 86.00%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Wealth
VS
Forge of Gems
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 20,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Wealth
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Wild Flow vs Arctic Hunt
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Ways to win. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 86.00% against 86.00%.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Very high.
- Shared theme signals: Wealth.
Wild Flow vs Forge of Gems
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Ways to win. 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% — Forge of Gems is 10.20 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 7.7×: 153,902× against 20,000×, with Wild Flow 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. Forge of Gems returns more in theory over the long run, while Wild Flow reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
- Shared theme signals: Wealth.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
