RTP spread across the catalogue: 97.67% down to 90.13%
Published RTP extremes: Zombie Queen 97.67% versus Zombie Town 90.13%
The catalogue's published RTP figures form a clear numerical span: the highest published RTP is 97.67% for Zombie Queen (Kalamba Games) and the lowest published RTP is 90.13% for Zombie Town (Belatra Games). These are the two published endpoints; every other published RTP lies between them. Stating both endpoints plainly is the first step toward understanding how catalogue numbers translate into long-run money arithmetic.
RTP is a construction parameter specified by the provider and reported in our catalogue. It is not a per-session result but an expectation expressed as a percentage of stake returned to players over an effectively infinite number of spins. Saying a game has 97.67% RTP means, in the long run, the game returns 97.67 units for each 100 staked; similarly 90.13% returns 90.13 units per 100 staked. This must be read as a parameter, not as a guarantee of what will happen on any given evening.
Readers should treat the endpoints as indicators of where the catalogue's published design choices lie, not as a ranking of 'good' or 'bad' games in isolation. A high RTP can coexist with high volatility and a low RTP can come with large maximum win potential. The numbers signal how the house edge is constructed; the player-facing consequence depends on stake, session length and variance. For decisions about bankroll and session planning, RTP is one input among several measurable ones.
How wide is the gap in money: a long-run example for 10,000 spins at 1.00 stake
To convert the RTP gap into long-run money arithmetic, pick a fixed stake and a large number of spins. Take 10,000 spins at a 1.00 stake per spin as a clear, repeatable example. This is long-run arithmetic: expected return equals RTP times total stake; expected loss equals total stake minus expected return.
Using the published figures, Zombie Queen at 97.67% returns 9,767 units from 10,000 units staked, so the expected loss is 233 units. Zombie Town at 90.13% returns 9,013 units from 10,000 units staked, so the expected loss is 987 units. The difference in expected loss between those two published RTPs over the same total stake is 754 units: long-run arithmetic, not a forecast of any particular session.
Presenting the example this way keeps it strictly arithmetic: pick stake and spins, multiply by the published RTPs, subtract from the total stake. The example scales linearly with stake and spins: double the stake or spins, double the expected return and double the expected loss in the arithmetic sense. The point is practical: when RTPs differ by several percentage points, the long-run money effect can be hundreds of units even on modest session sizes.
Six highest published RTP titles named precisely with studios and figures
The catalogue lists six titles at the top end of published RTP. They are Zombie Queen (Kalamba Games) RTP 97.67%, Wild Zombies (Popiplay) RTP 97.03%, Zombieland (Urgent Games) RTP 97%, Zombie Circus (Relax Gaming) RTP 96.92%, Zombie Outbreak (PG Soft) RTP 96.76%, and Zombie Road (Peter and Sons) RTP 96.56%. These six are the highest published RTP figures recorded in the catalogue.
Each entry in the list is a published design parameter; studios chose these particular percentages when providing the game's specification. A higher published RTP reduces the arithmetic of the house edge per unit staked in the long-run expectation. That said, RTP alone does not describe session-to-session variability; many of the high-RTP examples here carry MED, MED-HIGH or HIGH volatility labels which interact with how returns arrive over time.
For catalogue comparison and for any simple bankroll arithmetic, using the published RTPs above is appropriate. If a title also lists an RTP range as a feature, the specific variant in use depends on the operator and must be read in the game's info panel. Our catalogue records the published figure for the title row; the operator-facing version may differ if the title ships with multiple configurable RTPs.
Six lowest published RTP titles with exact studio and figure references
At the low end the catalogue lists six published RTP figures that anchor the bottom of the distribution. These are Zombie Town (Belatra Games) RTP 90.13%, Plants vs. Zombies: Wild Gargantuar (Blueprint) RTP 91.56%, Zombie Destroyers (Spinberry) RTP 93.12%, Giga Zombies (Yggdrasil) RTP 94%, Zombie Basketball Claw (clawbuster) RTP 94%, and Zombie Chicken (KA Gaming) RTP 94%. These are the lowest published RTPs recorded in the catalogue.
A low published RTP increases the long-run expected house edge per unit staked compared with higher RTP titles. That arithmetic is exact for the published figures: expected return equals RTP times total stake over the number of spins used in any long-run example. Several of the titles listed here also have other large numerical parameters, such as very large maximum wins or 'not published' fields, which the RTP number should be read alongside.
Presenting the bottom handful explicitly shows where catalogue publishers placed some design choices. The catalogue does not interpret those choices as recommendations; it simply reports the published percentages and the related metadata. For comparative arithmetic or when building simple expectations for bankroll sizing, using the exact published RTPs above is the correct input.
Titles with no RTP published: nine names and what missing RTP should imply
Nine titles in the catalogue have no published RTP. They are Zombie Rush Crash, Zombie Siege, Zany Zombie Zlots, Chinese Zombie, Zombies Payday, Zombie Killer, Princess Vs Zombie, Zombie vs Dao Zhang, and Zombie Moon. The catalogue marks those RTP fields as not published; that absence is genuine data, not an omission on our part.
A missing RTP is a material hole for players who use RTP as an input to session planning or risk management. Without a published RTP a player cannot form a straightforward long-run expectation for return per unit staked from the title, and must instead rely on other measurable parameters or seek the operator's info panel. For titles whose maximum win or volatility is also not published, the lack of RTP compounds the uncertainty.
Practically speaking, a missing RTP should make a player's decision more cautious if RTP matters to them: either consult the game's own info panel at the operator or treat the title as having an unknown long-run expectation. The catalogue reports the absence so readers can prioritise titles with transparent published parameters when transparency is important for their choice.
RTP ranges listed as a feature: 18 titles can carry several published versions
Eighteen titles in the catalogue list an RTP range as a feature, which means the same title can be published in several RTP versions depending on the operator. The catalogue row for each title shows the figure published for that entry; where a title ships with a selectable range, the operator's info panel is the authority for the version actually being played. Our single-row RTP figure is simply the published figure for that catalogue entry.
This multiplicity is important for anyone doing arithmetic based on an RTP figure: the figure in the catalogue might not match the RTP variant present at a particular operator. For titles that list RTP range among their features, the long-run expected return is the RTP of the variant in play, not necessarily the number printed in a central catalogue. Always consult the game info panel at the site where you intend to play to confirm which RTP variant is active.
The existence of ranges also explains why RTP comparisons across suppliers can be noisy: different operators may host different versions of the 'same' title. From a catalogue perspective we record the figure published with the title row; from a player's practical perspective the game's info panel at the operator is the final source. Treat catalogue RTP as a starting point and the operator's panel as the operative number for actual sessions.
RTP, volatility and maximum win: how these three numbers interact in arithmetic
RTP, volatility and maximum win are separate published parameters that together shape long-run and short-run behaviour. RTP provides the long-run expected return percentage; volatility signals how unevenly that return tends to be delivered over sessions; maximum win sets the arithmetic ceiling on what any single stake can legally return. Combining the three helps translate a published RTP into session-level expectations and bankroll choices in the arithmetic sense.
For example, a high-RTP title with HIGH volatility may still produce long stretches with results far below the expectation before occasional large payments restore the long-run average. Conversely, a lower-RTP title with LOW volatility will tend to return smaller, steadier amounts according to its lower expectation. Maximum win caps the tail: even if volatility is high, the payoff cannot exceed the published maximum multiple of stake, except where a catalogue marks a maximum as ADJUSTED and not directly comparable.
When doing long-run arithmetic, always use the published RTP percentage and the published maximum win and volatility labels as separate fields. If one of those fields is listed as not published, do not infer a value from other titles; treat the missing field as a hole in the data and seek the operator's info panel for the definitive specification. The catalogue records what the publishers claim and leaves interpretation to the reader.
Data completeness numbers: 53 of 62 titles publish an RTP, 19 maximum wins missing
The catalogue contains 62 titles in total and reports 53 with a published RTP. That leaves nine titles with no published RTP, a non-trivial share of the catalogue. Separately, 43 of the 62 titles publish a maximum win while 19 do not publish a maximum win; these are independent completeness metrics and both affect how comprehensively the catalogue can support arithmetic exercises.
Data completeness matters because missing fields change which calculations are possible from catalogue entries alone. If maximum win or volatility is not published for a title, you cannot combine published RTP with a reliable cap or a volatility label from the catalogue to form a full picture. The catalogue flags N/A and not published fields explicitly so readers can see where they need to consult the game's info panel for the final word.
For practical use, favour titles with the specific published fields you need for your arithmetic. If RTP is central to your decision, use one of the 53 titles with a published RTP or confirm the figure on the operator's panel for titles that advertise an RTP range. Our role is to present the numbers and the holes clearly so readers can apply arithmetic without hidden assumptions.
Seasonal note and a practical takeaway for the upcoming halloween season
With autumn approaching and October being the most common month for releases in this catalogue, the RTP questions here are timely for anyone drafting a seasonal play plan. Fifteen catalogue titles were released in October across various years, which makes the month numerically prominent in the release calendar. For players who prefer using published RTP as an input to seasonal decisions, checking the operator-specific RTP variant is a sensible additional step.
A practical takeaway: if RTP matters to you, use the catalogue to identify published extremes and names, then verify the operator's info panel for the RTP variant actually on offer. Where the catalogue reports not published for RTP, treat that title as requiring confirmation before you include it in any arithmetic-driven bankroll plan. The catalogue gives you the numbers to do long-run arithmetic; use the operator panel to confirm the operative number for sessions.
Finally, remember the long-run framing: RTP is an expectation over an effectively infinite number of rounds, not an evening's forecast. For the upcoming season, players who prefer lower variance around their RTP might select titles with published LOW or LOW-MED volatility labels and published RTP figures they trust. The catalogue is a tool for arithmetic; use it alongside the operator data for any concrete session planning.
