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.

PG Soft

Microgaming

Habanero

Reading the difference

Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.

Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
They come from different studios — PG Soft and Microgaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.77% against 96.77%.
Volatility cannot be compared: Alibaba's Cave of Fortune does not publish a rating.
Shared theme signals: East Asia.

Both titles are built on the same format family: Standard video slot. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
They come from different studios — PG Soft and Habanero — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 96.77% against 86.00% — Alibaba's Cave of Fortune is 10.77 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Both cap out at roughly the same place: 10,000× and 10,000×.
Volatility cannot be compared: Alibaba's Cave of Fortune does not publish a rating.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Alibaba's Cave of Fortune returns more in theory over the long run, while Fortune Dogs reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Shared theme signals: East Asia.

Add to the comparison (up to four)