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: 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: 96.24% against 96.40% — Wild Spells is 0.16 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 69.0×: 100,000× against 1,450×, with Enchanted Meadow 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. Wild Spells returns more in theory over the long run, while Enchanted Meadow reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Shared theme signals: Fantasy.

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: 96.24% against 96.21%.
Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.

Add to the comparison (up to four)