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

Play’n GO

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: 96.50% against 96.10% — Viking Runecraft: Apocalypse is 0.40 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Both carry the same volatility label: High.
Shared theme signals: Norse myth.

Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
Published RTP: 96.50% against 96.20% — Viking Runecraft: Apocalypse is 0.30 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 1.5×: 10,000× against 15,000×, with Viking Runecraft 100 higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Both carry the same volatility label: High.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Viking Runecraft: Apocalypse returns more in theory over the long run, while Viking Runecraft 100 reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Shared theme signals: Norse myth, Fantasy.

Add to the comparison (up to four)