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.
Hugo Carts
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.23%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- 25,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Colt Lightning
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.24%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- 25,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Guardians of Ice & Fire
PG Soft
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.70%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 50,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Hugo Carts vs Colt Lightning
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Ways to win. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.23% against 96.24%.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 25,000× and 25,000×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: High.
Hugo Carts vs Guardians of Ice & Fire
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Ways to win. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- 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: 96.23% against 96.70% — Guardians of Ice & Fire is 0.47 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 2.0×: 25,000× against 50,000×, with Guardians of Ice & Fire higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Guardians of Ice & Fire does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
