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.
Aloha! Cluster Pays
NetEnt
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.42%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 700×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Suck
Microgaming
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Aloha! Cluster Pays vs Suck
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Cluster pays. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- They come from different studios — NetEnt and Microgaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- RTP cannot be compared: Suck does not publish one.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Aloha! Cluster Pays does not publish a rating.
Aloha! Cluster Pays vs Le Football Fan
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Cluster pays. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- They come from different studios — NetEnt and Hacksaw Gaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.42% against 96.41%.
- Win caps differ by about 3.6×: 700× against 2,500×, with Le Football Fan higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Aloha! Cluster Pays does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Aloha! Cluster Pays returns more in theory over the long run, while Le Football Fan reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
