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

Play’n GO

PG Soft

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.
Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.20% against 96.20%.
Both cap out at roughly the same place: 3,000× and 3,000×.
Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.

Different format families: Wild Survivor is Fixed paylines, Three Crazy Piggies is Standard video slot. Read each screen with its own rule set.
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: 96.20% against 96.72% — Three Crazy Piggies is 0.52 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 1.2×: 3,000× against 2,500×, with Wild Survivor higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Volatility cannot be compared: Three Crazy Piggies does not publish a rating.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Three Crazy Piggies returns more in theory over the long run, while Wild Survivor reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

Add to the comparison (up to four)