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.
Buffalo King
Pragmatic Play
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.06%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- 93,750×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS
Piggy Heist
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.25%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 70,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS
Guardians of Ice & Fire
PG Soft
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.70%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 50,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Buffalo King vs Piggy Heist
- 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: 96.06% against 96.25% — Piggy Heist is 0.19 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.3×: 93,750× against 70,000×, with Buffalo King higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility labels differ: High against Medium. The label describes how widely outcomes scatter, not whether one game is better.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Piggy Heist returns more in theory over the long run, while Buffalo King reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Buffalo King vs Guardians of Ice & Fire
- 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 PG Soft — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.06% against 96.70% — Guardians of Ice & Fire is 0.64 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.9×: 93,750× against 50,000×, with Buffalo King higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Guardians of Ice & Fire does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Guardians of Ice & Fire returns more in theory over the long run, while Buffalo King reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
