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.

Play’n GO

Pragmatic Play

Microgaming

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 — Play’n GO and Pragmatic Play — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 96.20% against 96.00% — Canine Carnage is 0.20 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Both cap out at roughly the same place: 3,000× and 3,000×.
Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Canine Carnage returns more in theory over the long run, while Running Sushi reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

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 — Play’n GO and Microgaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 96.20% against 96.29% — 3rd Base is 0.09 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 1.4×: 3,000× against 2,114×, with Canine Carnage higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. 3rd Base returns more in theory over the long run, while Canine Carnage reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

Add to the comparison (up to four)