Compare package scenarios
Two packages compared under two different sets of assumptions is not a comparison. This runs every scenario through the same method at the same version.
Comparison
Fill in a price and a Sweeps Coin amount for each scenario to compare them.
How this calculation works
This tool evaluates between two and four package scenarios with the package-value method, at one version, and puts the results in a single table. The only thing it adds over running the calculator several times is the guarantee that nothing differs between the runs except what you typed.
Scenarios are ranked by theoretical cost per redeemable Sweeps Coin: the price divided by the balance expected to survive the wagering requirement. That is a function of the numbers you enter and of nothing else. No commercial relationship of any kind reaches this calculation: the numbers you enter are its only input.
A scenario whose requirement is expected to consume the whole balance has no cost per redeemable coin, so it is reported separately rather than sorted to the bottom. Placing it last would suggest it had been measured on the same scale as the others, and it has not.
What you need to enter
| Input | Unit | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Scenario name | text | A label so you can tell rows apart. It has no effect on any figure. |
| Price | USD | What that package costs. |
| SC received | SC | Sweeps Coins the package carries. |
| Playthrough | dimensionless | The multiplier attached to those coins. |
| Assumed RTP | percent | The long-run return you assume for the game. Enter the same value across scenarios unless you specifically mean to compare different games. |
| Contribution | percent | Share of each coin staked that counts toward the requirement. |
The formula
Each scenario is evaluated with the package-value method at its stated version.
What each symbol means
| Symbol | Name | Unit | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
n | Scenario count | count | Between two and four scenarios, so the table stays readable and comparable. |
Worked example
When more coins beat less playthrough — and when they do not
- Scenario A: $20 for 40 SC at 10x. Scenario B: $20 for 20 SC with no requirement. Both at 96% RTP and full contribution.
- A stakes 400 SC against a 4% edge, losing 16 SC, leaving 24 SC. That is $20 ÷ 24 = $0.8333 per redeemable coin.
- B stakes nothing, leaving 20 SC. That is $20 ÷ 20 = $1.00 per redeemable coin.
- A wins, despite carrying a 10x requirement: doubling the coins outweighs the playthrough when the edge is only 4%.
- Change the assumed RTP to 88% and the answer reverses. A now stakes 400 SC against a 12% edge, losing 48 SC against a 40 SC balance — the requirement exhausts it, and A cannot be ranked at all.
Takeaway. Neither "more coins is better" nor "less playthrough is better" holds on its own. The assumed RTP decides which effect wins, which is why it must be stated and held equal across the scenarios you compare.
Assumptions
These conditions have to hold for the result to mean what it says. Where one does not apply to your situation, the figure will be wrong in a direction the calculator cannot know about.
- Every scenario is evaluated with the same method and version. A comparison between two different models would not be a comparison of the packages.
- Ordering is by theoretical cost per redeemable Sweeps Coin under the stated assumptions, computed from the inputs alone. Equal costs share a rank.
Limitations
What this calculation cannot tell you:
- The ranking is only as good as the assumed RTP and contribution values entered. Two scenarios given different RTP assumptions are being compared on those assumptions as much as on their prices.
- A scenario whose expected balance reaches zero cannot be ranked on cost per redeemable coin and is reported separately rather than being sorted last.
- No commercial relationship of any kind enters this calculation. The ordering is a function of the numbers you enter and nothing else.
Method and version
This page uses scenario-comparison v1.0.1. Every figure it produces comes from that method at that version, and the worked examples are pinned to the same version — when a method changes in a way that moves a published number, the example is re-derived at the new version.
| Version | Date | Change |
|---|---|---|
1.0.1 | 2026-08-18 | Equal cost-per-redeemable values now share a rank instead of being numbered by input order. |
1.0.0 | 2026-08-15 | First published version. |
Full details of how these models were chosen are on the methodology page.
A note on playing
A ranking here identifies the least expensive option among the ones you entered under the assumptions you chose. It is not a recommendation to buy any of them, and the option ranked first still carries a negative expected value.
An expected value is an average over an enormous number of repetitions. It is not a prediction, a target, or a result you are owed. See responsible play.