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

PG Soft

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.

Different format families: Enchanted Meadow is Fixed paylines, Double Fortune is Standard video slot. Read each screen with its own rule set.
They come from different studios — Play’n GO and PG Soft — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.24% against 96.22%.
Both cap out at roughly the same place: 100,000× and 100,000×.
Volatility cannot be compared: Double Fortune does not publish a rating.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Enchanted Meadow returns more in theory over the long run, while Double Fortune reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

Add to the comparison (up to four)