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.
Safari Wilds
PG Soft
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.75%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS
Wild Catch
Microgaming
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.30%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS
Werewolf's Hunt
PG Soft
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.75%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 10,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Animals
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Safari Wilds vs Wild Catch
- 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: 96.75% against 96.30% — Safari Wilds is 0.45 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Safari Wilds does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Safari Wilds vs Werewolf's Hunt
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.75% against 96.75%.
- Win caps differ by about 2.0×: 5,000× against 10,000×, with Werewolf's Hunt higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Safari Wilds does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
