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.
Ms Robin Hood
NetEnt
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.19%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 12,574×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Burning Desire
Microgaming
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.19%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Wealth
VS
Mount M
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.25%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 13,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Ms Robin Hood vs Burning Desire
- 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 Microgaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.19% against 96.19%.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Ms Robin Hood does not publish a rating.
Ms Robin Hood vs Mount M
- 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: 96.19% against 96.25% — Mount M is 0.06 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 12,574× and 13,000×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Ms Robin Hood does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
