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.
Wild Worlds™
NetEnt
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.47%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 600×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Le Football Fan
Hacksaw Gaming
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.41%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 2,500×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Sports
VS
Pearl Harbor
Nolimit City
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.21%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 41,127×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Wild Worlds™ vs Le Football Fan
- 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 Hacksaw Gaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.47% against 96.41% — Wild Worlds™ is 0.06 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 4.2×: 600× against 2,500×, with Le Football Fan higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Wild Worlds™ does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Wild Worlds™ returns more in theory over the long run, while Le Football Fan reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Wild Worlds™ vs Pearl Harbor
- 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 Nolimit City — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.47% against 96.21% — Wild Worlds™ is 0.26 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 68.5×: 600× against 41,127×, with Pearl Harbor higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Wild Worlds™ does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Wild Worlds™ returns more in theory over the long run, while Pearl Harbor reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
