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.
Monkey Madness
Pragmatic Play
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.53%
- Volatility
- Low
- Win cap
- 200×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS
Great Rhino
Pragmatic Play
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.53%
- Volatility
- Low
- Win cap
- 900×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Animals
VS
Three Crazy Piggies
PG Soft
- Format family
- Standard video slot
- RTP
- 96.72%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 2,500×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Animals
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Monkey Madness vs Great Rhino
- 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: 96.53% against 96.53%.
- Win caps differ by about 4.5×: 200× against 900×, with Great Rhino higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Low.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Monkey Madness vs Three Crazy Piggies
- Different format families: Monkey Madness is Fixed paylines, Three Crazy Piggies is Standard video slot. Read each screen with its own rule set.
- 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: 96.53% against 96.72% — Three Crazy Piggies is 0.19 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 12.5×: 200× against 2,500×, with Three Crazy Piggies higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Three Crazy Piggies does not publish a rating.
- Shared theme signals: Animals.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
