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.
Lost Relics™
NetEnt
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.30%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 900×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Finn's Golden Tavern
NetEnt
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.10%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 1,100×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Wealth
VS
Orphan Organ
Microgaming
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Horror
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Lost Relics™ vs Finn's Golden Tavern
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Cluster pays. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP: 96.30% against 96.10% — Lost Relics™ is 0.20 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.2×: 900× against 1,100×, with Finn's Golden Tavern higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Lost Relics™ does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Lost Relics™ returns more in theory over the long run, while Finn's Golden Tavern reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Lost Relics™ vs Orphan Organ
- 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: Orphan Organ does not publish one.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Lost Relics™ does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
