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.
Blood Suckers
NetEnt
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 98.00%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 900×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Codex of Fortune
NetEnt
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 98.00%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- East Asia
VS
Jolly Roger
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 97.00%
- Volatility
- Low
- Win cap
- 928×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Blood Suckers vs Codex of Fortune
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 98.00% against 98.00%.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Blood Suckers does not publish a rating.
Blood Suckers vs Jolly Roger
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- They come from different studios — NetEnt and Play’n GO — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 98.00% against 97.00% — Blood Suckers is 1.00 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 900× and 928×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Blood Suckers does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Blood Suckers returns more in theory over the long run, while Jolly Roger reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
