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.
Sweet Bonanza
Pragmatic Play
- Format family
- Cascading reels
- RTP
- 96.49%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 21,175×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Sweets
VS
Sweet Bonanza Xmas
Pragmatic Play
- Format family
- Cascading reels
- RTP
- 96.49%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 21,175×
- Reels
- Not published
- Theme signals
- Sweets
VS
Cake Valley
Habanero
- Format family
- Ways to win
- RTP
- 86.00%
- Volatility
- Medium
- Win cap
- 3,888×
- Reels
- 5
- Theme signals
- Sweets, Wealth
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Sweet Bonanza vs Sweet Bonanza Xmas
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Cascading reels. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- Published RTP is effectively identical: 96.49% against 96.49%.
- Both cap out at roughly the same place: 21,175× and 21,175×.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
- Shared theme signals: Sweets.
Sweet Bonanza vs Cake Valley
- Different format families: Sweet Bonanza is Cascading reels, Cake Valley is Ways to win. Read each screen with its own rule set.
- They come from different studios — Pragmatic Play and Habanero — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- Published RTP: 96.49% against 86.00% — Sweet Bonanza is 10.49 points higher. RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a session forecast.
- Win caps differ by about 5.4×: 21,175× against 3,888×, with Sweet Bonanza higher. A cap is a rulebook ceiling, not an expectation.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Medium.
- Shared theme signals: Sweets.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
