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.
Xmas Magic
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.50%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 20,000×
- Reels
- 0
- Theme signals
- Fantasy
VS
Rainforest Magic
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.54%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- 0
- Theme signals
- Fantasy
VS
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Xmas Magic vs Rainforest Magic
- 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: 96.50% against 96.54%.
- Win caps differ by about 4.0×: 20,000× against 5,000×, with Xmas Magic higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Rainforest Magic returns more in theory over the long run, while Xmas Magic reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
- Shared theme signals: Fantasy.
Xmas Magic vs Magic Piggy OG
- 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 Hacksaw Gaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.50% against 96.20% — Xmas Magic is 0.30 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 8.0×: 20,000× against 2,500×, with Xmas Magic higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Magic Piggy OG does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Fantasy.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
