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
Lost Relics™
NetEnt
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.30%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 900×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Cluster pays. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP: 96.47% against 96.30% — Wild Worlds™ is 0.17 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.5×: 600× against 900×, with Lost Relics™ 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 Lost Relics™ reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
