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.
Matsuri
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.17%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 3,000×
- Reels
- 0
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Frankenstein
Microgaming
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.19%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Horror
VS
Fruits
Nolimit City
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.23%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 2,910×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Fruit & classic
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Matsuri vs Frankenstein
- 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: 96.17% against 96.19%.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Matsuri vs Fruits
- Different format families: Matsuri is Fixed paylines, Fruits is Standard video slot. Read each screen with its own rule set.
- They come from different studios — Play’n GO and Nolimit City — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.17% against 96.23% — Fruits is 0.06 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 3,000× and 2,910×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Fruits does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Fruits returns more in theory over the long run, while Matsuri reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
