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
Ice Joker
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.23%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 3,000×
- Reels
- 0
- Theme signals
- Not published
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 Ice Joker
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP: 96.17% against 96.23% — Ice Joker 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 3,000×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
