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.
Gem Crush™
NetEnt
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.13%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 4,361×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Wealth
VS
Lucky Twins Wilds
Microgaming
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- East Asia, Wealth
VS
Mafia Gold
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- 6,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Wealth
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Gem Crush™ vs Lucky Twins Wilds
- 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: Lucky Twins Wilds does not publish one.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Gem Crush™ does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Wealth.
Gem Crush™ vs Mafia Gold
- Different format families: Gem Crush™ is Cluster pays, Mafia Gold is Fixed paylines. Read each screen with its own rule set.
- 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: 96.13% against 96.20% — Mafia Gold is 0.07 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.4×: 4,361× against 6,000×, with Mafia Gold higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Gem Crush™ does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Wealth.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
