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.

Midas Fortune
PG Soft
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.73%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- East Asia, Wealth
VS

Coins of Fortune
Nolimit City
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.48%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 6,015×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- East Asia, Wealth
VS

Golden Caravan
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.19%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- 0
- Theme signals
- Wealth
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Midas Fortune vs Coins of Fortune
- 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 Nolimit City — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.73% against 96.48% — Midas Fortune is 0.25 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.2×: 5,000× against 6,015×, with Coins of Fortune higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Midas Fortune does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Midas Fortune returns more in theory over the long run, while Coins of Fortune reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
- Shared theme signals: East Asia, Wealth.
Midas Fortune vs Golden Caravan
- 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: 96.73% against 96.19% — Midas Fortune is 0.54 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 5,000× and 5,000×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Midas Fortune does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Midas Fortune returns more in theory over the long run, while Golden Caravan reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
- Shared theme signals: Wealth.
Add to the comparison (up to four)



