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.
Crabby's Gold
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.25%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 70,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Wealth
VS
Crabby's Gold II
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.22%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- 30,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Wealth
VS
Mental
Nolimit City
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.08%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 66,666×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Crabby's Gold vs Crabby's Gold II
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Ways to win. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.25% against 96.22%.
- Win caps differ by about 2.3×: 70,000× against 30,000×, with Crabby's Gold higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility labels differ: Medium against High. The label describes how widely outcomes scatter, not whether one game is better.
- Shared theme signals: Wealth.
Crabby's Gold vs Mental
- 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 Nolimit City — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.25% against 96.08% — Crabby's Gold is 0.17 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 70,000× and 66,666×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Mental does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
