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.
Count Jokula
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.25%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 1,500×
- Reels
- 500
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
10000 Wishes
Microgaming
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.27%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
House of Doom
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.11%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 2,500×
- Reels
- 500
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Count Jokula vs 10000 Wishes
- 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 Microgaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.25% against 96.27%.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Count Jokula vs House of Doom
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP: 96.25% against 96.11% — Count Jokula is 0.14 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.7×: 1,500× against 2,500×, with House of Doom 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. Count Jokula returns more in theory over the long run, while House of Doom reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
