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.
Chinese New Year
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.65%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 67×
- Reels
- 67
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Ninja Fruits
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.65%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 67×
- Reels
- 67
- Theme signals
- East Asia, Fruit & classic
VS
Imperial Riches™
NetEnt
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.88%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 200×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Wealth
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Chinese New Year vs Ninja Fruits
- 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: 96.65% against 96.65%.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 67× and 67×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Chinese New Year vs Imperial Riches™
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Fixed paylines. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- They come from different studios — Play’n GO and NetEnt — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.65% against 96.88% — Imperial Riches™ is 0.23 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 3.0×: 67× against 200×, with Imperial Riches™ higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Imperial Riches™ does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
