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
Orphan Organ
Microgaming
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Horror
VS
Doom of Egypt
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.21%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- 500×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Egypt
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Wild Worlds™ 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: Wild Worlds™ does not publish a rating.
Wild Worlds™ vs Doom of Egypt
- Different format families: Wild Worlds™ is Cluster pays, Doom of Egypt is Fixed paylines. Read each screen with its own rule set.
- 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: 96.47% 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 1.2×: 600× against 500×, with Wild Worlds™ higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Wild Worlds™ does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
