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.
Congo Cash
Pragmatic Play
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 95.55%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 2,200×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Wealth
VS
Mining Pots of Gold™
Microgaming
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.00%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Wealth
VS
Perfect Gems
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.50%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Wealth
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Congo Cash vs Mining Pots of Gold™
- 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.
- Published RTP: 95.55% against 96.00% — Mining Pots of Gold™ is 0.45 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
- Shared theme signals: Wealth.
Congo Cash vs Perfect Gems
- 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: 95.55% against 96.50% — Perfect Gems is 0.95 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 2.3×: 2,200× against 5,000×, with Perfect Gems higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
- Shared theme signals: Wealth.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
