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.

Pragmatic Play

NetEnt

Play’n GO

Reading the difference

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

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 — Pragmatic Play and NetEnt — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP is effectively identical: 95.06% against 95.08%.
Win caps differ by about 2.8×: 5,000× against 1,800×, with Infective Wild higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
Volatility cannot be compared: Excalibur does not publish a rating.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Excalibur returns more in theory over the long run, while Infective Wild reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

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 — Pragmatic Play and Play’n GO — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
Published RTP: 95.06% against 95.00% — Infective Wild is 0.06 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
Both cap out at roughly the same place: 5,000× and 5,250×.
Volatility labels differ: Low against Medium. The label describes how widely outcomes scatter, not whether one game is better.
Worth noticing: the higher RTP and the higher win cap sit on opposite sides. Infective Wild returns more in theory over the long run, while Irish Gold reaches further at its ceiling. The two numbers answer different questions.

Add to the comparison (up to four)