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.
Energoonz
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.69%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 15×
- Reels
- 15
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Journey to Paris
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.69%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 15×
- Reels
- 15
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Chicky Run
PG Soft
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.00%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 72×
- 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.
Energoonz vs Journey to Paris
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.69% against 96.69%.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 15× and 15×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Energoonz vs Chicky Run
- Different format families: Energoonz is Fixed paylines, Chicky Run 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: 96.69% against 96.00% — Energoonz is 0.69 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 4.8×: 15× against 72×, with Chicky Run higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Chicky Run does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Energoonz returns more in theory over the long run, while Chicky Run reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
