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.
Contact
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.55%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 5×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Queens of Ra
Microgaming
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Egypt
VS
Isibaya Queens
Habanero
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 86.00%
- Volatility
- High
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Contact vs Queens of Ra
- 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 Microgaming — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.55% against 96.20% — Contact is 0.35 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Very high.
Contact vs Isibaya Queens
- 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 Habanero — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.55% against 86.00% — Contact is 10.55 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Volatility labels differ: Very high against High. The label describes how widely outcomes scatter, not whether one game is better.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
