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.

Play’n GO

NetEnt

Habanero

Reading the difference

Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.

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: 96.10% against 96.03% — Sweet 27 is 0.07 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Both cap out at roughly the same place: 645× and 600×.
Volatility cannot be compared: Temple of Nudges™ does not publish a rating.

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 Habanero — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 96.10% against 86.00% — Sweet 27 is 10.10 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Win caps differ by about 1.6×: 645× against 1,064×, with Crystopia higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Sweet 27 returns more in theory over the long run, while Crystopia reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

Add to the comparison (up to four)