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.
Flying Pigs
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- 25×
- Reels
- 25
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS

Super Sticky Piggy
Booongo
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS

Buffalo Hunter
Nolimit City
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.01%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 12,647×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Flying Pigs vs Super Sticky Piggy
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- They come from different studios — Play’n GO and Booongo — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- RTP cannot be compared: Flying Pigs does not publish one.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Super Sticky Piggy does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Flying Pigs vs Buffalo Hunter
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. 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.
- RTP cannot be compared: Flying Pigs does not publish one.
- Win caps differ by about 505.9×: 25× against 12,647×, with Buffalo Hunter higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Buffalo Hunter does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Add to the comparison (up to four)


