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.
Ne Zha: Triple Powers
Microgaming
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.24%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 10,000×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Greek myth
VS
13th Trial Hercules Abyssways
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- 60,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Greek myth
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
- 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 — Microgaming and Play’n GO — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.24% against 96.20%.
- Win caps differ by about 6.0×: 10,000× against 60,000×, with 13th Trial Hercules Abyssways higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility labels differ: Very high against High. The label describes how widely outcomes scatter, not whether one game is better.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Ne Zha: Triple Powers returns more in theory over the long run, while 13th Trial Hercules Abyssways reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
- Shared theme signals: Greek myth.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
