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

Pragmatic Play

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.
They come from different studios — NetEnt and Pragmatic Play — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 96.10% against 96.00% — Good Old 7’s™ is 0.10 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 1.1×: 3,348× against 3,000×, with Good Old 7’s™ higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Volatility cannot be compared: Good Old 7’s™ does not publish a rating.

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: 96.10% against 96.20% — Canine Carnage is 0.10 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 1.1×: 3,348× against 3,000×, with Good Old 7’s™ higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Volatility cannot be compared: Good Old 7’s™ does not publish a rating.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Canine Carnage returns more in theory over the long run, while Good Old 7’s™ reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

Add to the comparison (up to four)