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.
Excalibur
NetEnt
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 95.08%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 1,800×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Arabian Nights
NetEnt
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 95.62%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 1,727×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Fruits Fever 5 lines
Booongo
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Fruit & classic
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Excalibur vs Arabian Nights
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP: 95.08% against 95.62% — Arabian Nights is 0.54 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 1,800× and 1,727×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Excalibur does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Arabian Nights returns more in theory over the long run, while Excalibur reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Excalibur vs Fruits Fever 5 lines
- 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 Booongo — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- RTP cannot be compared: Fruits Fever 5 lines does not publish one.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Excalibur does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
