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.

Dragon Shard

Microgaming

Format family
Standard video slot
RTP
96.77%
Volatility
Medium
Win cap
Not published
Reels
Not published
Theme signals
East Asia
Free demo available →
VS

Alibaba's Cave of Fortune

PG Soft

Format family
Standard video slot
RTP
96.77%
Volatility
Not published
Win cap
10,000×
Reels
5
Theme signals
East Asia
Free demo available →
VS

Gemix

Play’n GO

Format family
Standard video slot
RTP
96.83%
Volatility
Medium
Win cap
Reels
3
Theme signals
Wealth
Free demo available →

Reading the difference

Reading the difference

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

Dragon Shard vs Alibaba's Cave of Fortune

  • Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
  • They come from different studios — Microgaming and PG Soft — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
  • Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.77% against 96.77%.
  • Volatility cannot be compared: Alibaba's Cave of Fortune does not publish a rating.
  • Shared theme signals: East Asia.

Dragon Shard vs Gemix

  • Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
  • They come from different studios — Microgaming and Play’n GO — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
  • Published RTP: 96.77% against 96.83% — Gemix is 0.06 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
  • Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.

Add to the comparison (up to four)

Add to the comparison (up to four)