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.
Mount M
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.25%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 13,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Ms Robin Hood
NetEnt
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.19%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 12,574×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Jingle Balls
Nolimit City
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 96.10%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 12,250×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Not published
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Mount M vs Ms Robin Hood
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Ways to win. 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: 96.25% against 96.19% — Mount M is 0.06 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 13,000× and 12,574×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Ms Robin Hood does not publish a rating.
Mount M vs Jingle Balls
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Ways to win. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- They come from different studios — Play’n GO and Nolimit City — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.25% against 96.10% — Mount M is 0.15 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 13,000× and 12,250×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Jingle Balls does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
