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.

PG Soft

Microgaming

Play’n GO

Reading the difference

Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.

Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
They come from different studios — PG Soft and Microgaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP is effectively identical: 97.44% against 97.49%.
Volatility cannot be compared: Flirting Scholar does not publish a rating.

Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
They come from different studios — PG Soft and Play’n GO — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 97.44% against 96.51% — Flirting Scholar is 0.93 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 1.1×: 22,500× against 25,000×, with Spin Party higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Volatility cannot be compared: Flirting Scholar does not publish a rating.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Flirting Scholar returns more in theory over the long run, while Spin Party reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

Add to the comparison (up to four)