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.

Dwarf & Dragon
Pragmatic Play
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.59%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- 14,000×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- East Asia
VS

Dragon Tribe
Nolimit City
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.07%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 27,000×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- East Asia
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.
Dwarf & Dragon vs Dragon Tribe
- 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 Nolimit City — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.59% against 96.07% — Dwarf & Dragon is 0.52 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 1.9×: 14,000× against 27,000×, with Dragon Tribe higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Dragon Tribe does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Dwarf & Dragon returns more in theory over the long run, while Dragon Tribe reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
- Shared theme signals: East Asia.
Dwarf & Dragon 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: 96.59% against 96.70% — Guardians of Ice & Fire is 0.11 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 3.6×: 14,000× against 50,000×, with Guardians of Ice & Fire higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Guardians of Ice & Fire does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)



