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
Wild Hop & Drop
Pragmatic Play
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.46%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- East Asia
VS
Suck
Microgaming
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Aloha! Cluster Pays vs Wild Hop & Drop
- 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 Pragmatic Play — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.42% against 96.46%.
- Win caps differ by about 7.1×: 700× against 5,000×, with Wild Hop & Drop higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Aloha! Cluster Pays does not publish a rating.
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.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
