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.
Hugo 2
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.53%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- 0
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Rise of Dead
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.53%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 5,000×
- Reels
- 0
- Theme signals
- Horror
VS
Grand Spinn™
NetEnt
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.19%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 5,200×
- Reels
- 3
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Hugo 2 vs Rise of Dead
- 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%.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 5,000× and 5,000×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Hugo 2 vs Grand Spinn™
- 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: 96.53% against 96.19% — Hugo 2 is 0.34 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 5,000× and 5,200×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Grand Spinn™ does not publish a rating.
- Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Hugo 2 returns more in theory over the long run, while Grand Spinn™ reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
