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.
Charlie Chance in Hell to Pay
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.23%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 6,666×
- Reels
- 3
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Striking Hot 5
Pragmatic Play
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.29%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals
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: Fixed paylines. 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: 96.23% against 96.29% — Striking Hot 5 is 0.06 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.3×: 6,666× against 5,000×, with Charlie Chance in Hell to Pay 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. Striking Hot 5 returns more in theory over the long run, while Charlie Chance in Hell to Pay reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
