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.
Wild Survivor
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 3,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Banana Rush
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 3,000×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Druid’s Magic
NetEnt
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.14%
- Volatility
- Not published
- Win cap
- 2,983×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Fantasy
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Wild Survivor vs Banana Rush
- 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: 96.20% against 96.20%.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 3,000× and 3,000×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
Wild Survivor vs Druid’s Magic
- 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: 96.20% against 96.14% — Wild Survivor is 0.06 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 3,000× and 2,983×.
- Volatility cannot be compared: Druid’s Magic does not publish a rating.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
