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.
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
VS
The Border
Nolimit City
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.17%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 44,288×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Shark Feast
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 40,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Animals
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Pearl Harbor vs The Border
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Cluster pays. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.21% against 96.17%.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 41,127× and 44,288×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Pearl Harbor does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Pearl Harbor returns more in theory over the long run, while The Border reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Pearl Harbor vs Shark Feast
- Different format families: Pearl Harbor is Cluster pays, Shark Feast is Fixed paylines. Read each screen with its own rule set.
- They come from different studios — Nolimit City and Play’n GO — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.21% against 96.20%.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 41,127× and 40,000×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Pearl Harbor does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
