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

Microgaming

Pragmatic Play

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 Microgaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.11% against 96.07%.
Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.

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: 96.11% against 96.03% — House of Doom is 0.08 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Both cap out at roughly the same place: 2,500× and 2,500×.
Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. House of Doom returns more in theory over the long run, while Nile Fortune reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

Add to the comparison (up to four)