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.
Cops ’n’ Robbers
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.46%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 66×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Wild Pixies
Pragmatic Play
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.48%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 700×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- East Asia
VS
Flowers
NetEnt
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.32%
- Volatility
- Not published
- 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.
Cops ’n’ Robbers vs Wild Pixies
- 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 Pragmatic Play — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.46% against 96.48%.
- Win caps differ by about 10.6×: 66× against 700×, with Wild Pixies higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Cops ’n’ Robbers vs Flowers
- 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: 96.46% against 96.32% — Cops ’n’ Robbers is 0.14 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Flowers does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
