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.

Pragmatic Play

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: Ways to win. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
They come from different studios — Pragmatic Play and Microgaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
RTP cannot be compared: Preach TV does not publish one.
Both carry the same volatility label: Very high.
Shared theme signals: Wealth.

Both titles are built on the same format family: Ways to win. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
They come from different studios — Pragmatic Play and Play’n GO — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 96.54% against 96.20% — Anaconda Gold is 0.34 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 2.0×: 10,000× against 20,000×, with Forge of Gems higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Both carry the same volatility label: Very high.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Anaconda Gold returns more in theory over the long run, while Forge of Gems reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Shared theme signals: Wealth.

Add to the comparison (up to four)