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.
Feline Fury
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.21%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Fate's Fortune
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- East Asia
VS
Mummy Lock Riches
Microgaming
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.21%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Egypt, Wealth
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Feline Fury vs Fate's Fortune
- 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: 96.21% against 96.20%.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 5,000× and 5,000×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Feline Fury returns more in theory over the long run, while Fate's Fortune reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Feline Fury vs Mummy Lock Riches
- 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: 96.21% against 96.21%.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
