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.
Hood vs Wolf
PG Soft
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 95.39%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 4,000×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS
Super Sticky Piggy
Booongo
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS
Safari Wilds
PG Soft
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.75%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Animals
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Hood vs Wolf vs Super Sticky Piggy
- 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: Super Sticky Piggy does not publish one.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Hood vs Wolf does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Hood vs Wolf vs Safari Wilds
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP: 95.39% against 96.75% — Safari Wilds is 1.36 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.3×: 4,000× against 5,000×, with Safari Wilds higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Hood vs Wolf does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
