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

Booongo

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 Booongo — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
RTP cannot be compared: Lucky Apple x1000 does not publish one.
Volatility cannot be compared: Fortune Mouse does not publish a rating.
Shared theme signals: East Asia.

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: 96.96% against 96.20% — Fortune Mouse is 0.76 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 2.5×: 1,000× against 2,500×, with Primal Rampage higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Volatility cannot be compared: Fortune Mouse does not publish a rating.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Fortune Mouse returns more in theory over the long run, while Primal Rampage reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

Add to the comparison (up to four)