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.
Guardians of Ice & Fire
PG Soft
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.70%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 50,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
13th Trial Hercules Abyssways
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- 60,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Greek myth
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: Ways to win. 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: 96.70% against 96.20% — Guardians of Ice & Fire is 0.50 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.2×: 50,000× against 60,000×, with 13th Trial Hercules Abyssways higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Guardians of Ice & Fire does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Guardians of Ice & Fire returns more in theory over the long run, while 13th Trial Hercules Abyssways reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
