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.

NetEnt

NetEnt

Play’n GO

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.
Published RTP: 96.33% against 96.06% — Cashomatic is 0.27 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 2.2×: 2,200× against 1,000×, with Cashomatic higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Volatility cannot be compared: Cashomatic does not publish a rating.
Shared theme signals: Wealth.

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 — NetEnt and Play’n GO — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 96.33% against 96.23% — Cashomatic is 0.10 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 4.1×: 2,200× against 9,000×, with Rascal Riches higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Volatility cannot be compared: Cashomatic does not publish a rating.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Cashomatic returns more in theory over the long run, while Rascal Riches reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Shared theme signals: Wealth.

Add to the comparison (up to four)