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.
Magic Lab™
NetEnt
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.10%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 5,999×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Fantasy, Animals
VS
Safari Wilds
PG Soft
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.75%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS
Buffalo Hunter
Nolimit City
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.01%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 12,647×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Magic Lab™ vs Safari Wilds
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- They come from different studios — NetEnt and PG Soft — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.10% against 96.75% — Safari Wilds is 0.65 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.2×: 5,999× against 5,000×, with Magic Lab™ higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Magic Lab™ does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Safari Wilds returns more in theory over the long run, while Magic Lab™ reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Magic Lab™ vs Buffalo Hunter
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- They come from different studios — NetEnt and Nolimit City — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.10% against 96.01% — Magic Lab™ is 0.09 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 2.1×: 5,999× against 12,647×, with Buffalo Hunter higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Magic Lab™ does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Magic Lab™ returns more in theory over the long run, while Buffalo Hunter reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
