Pragmatic Play's own page for Sweet Bonanza states one figure, an RTP of 96.48 percent. The maximum win multiplier that most review pages quote for the game does not come from that page.
Published 2026-09-09Not changed since publicationNo review date set yetSources not re-read since publication
Pragmatic Play's page for the title carries one number, under a heading it labels "Basic Game Info": 96.48%◦. Checked again directly against that page on 2026-09-09, the block still holds nothing beyond the return figure. No maximum win multiplier. No volatility label. No hit frequency. No feature frequency for the four to six scatters that trigger free spins.
The rest of the page describes mechanics, not returns. Eight to twelve or more matching symbols pay anywhere on a six-by-five grid, up to 50x the stake. Four to six scatters award up to 100x and ten free spins.
Tumbles clear winning symbols and drop fresh ones into the gaps, so one spin can pay several times before it ends. Free spins carry multiplier symbols worth two to one hundred times the stake, and those values add together once the tumble sequence finishes.
None of those feature caps is a maximum win for the whole game, and the page never says how they combine at the extreme end of a session. That prose describes play. It does not describe payout, and the two are not interchangeable however similar they read on the page.
A same-day search for Sweet Bonanza's return figure turns up half a dozen independent review pages. Most report a maximum win somewhere between 21,100 and 21,175 times the stake. Many also assign a volatility rating of medium-high or high, another label the studio's own page never uses. None of the pages checked for this piece cites where that multiplier comes from. It reads like an inherited figure.
One page states it. Later pages repeat it. Each repetition makes it look more settled than the one before, without anyone tracing it back to whoever actually issued it.
That is not proof the figure is wrong. A pay-anywhere tumble slot with stacking multiplier symbols can plausibly reach a five-figure multiple of the stake, and 21,000x-plus sits inside a believable range for the mechanic the studio does describe. What it is not, on the evidence available today, is a figure Pragmatic Play has put its own name to for this title. The studio that built Sweet Bonanza has stated one number about what it returns. Everything above that is somebody else's estimate, however many pages now agree on it.
Sweet Bonanza 1000 shows what a Pragmatic Play game page looks like when the studio does choose to publish a maximum win. 96.53%◦, and the same page states outright that the game "offers wins of up to 25,000×◦," a figure the studio first gave in its own launch announcement for the title and then repeated on the game page itself. That page also states the grid directly: six reels, five rows, fixed. Sweet Bonanza's page states neither.
Same studio. Same candy theme. Same tumble-and-multiplier mechanic, carried into a sequel. And two different disclosure habits, sitting side by side in one catalogue. That gap is not a limit of what a Pragmatic Play game page can hold. Sweet Bonanza 1000 is the proof the template carries a maximum win figure whenever the studio chooses to write one in. On the original Sweet Bonanza, for whatever reason, it has not.
A maximum win multiplier is a ceiling on a single spin's payout. It is not a target. Whether or not the studio ever states the number, somewhere inside Sweet Bonanza's math model that ceiling exists, because every RNG slot Pragmatic Play builds runs on a pay table with a fixed upper bound. The studio choosing not to state that number does not remove the ceiling. It removes a reader's ability to check it against anything the company actually said.
The same page is just as quiet on hit frequency. A high theoretical ceiling paired with an unstated hit rate tells a reader nothing about how often any of it is likely to matter across a normal session, and Sweet Bonanza's own page leaves that question exactly as open as the maximum win question.
That distinction matters most to anyone comparing two titles by their headline potential. A stated 25,000x on Sweet Bonanza 1000 and an unstated ceiling on the original are not comparable on equal footing, even when a review page shows a number for both, side by side. One of those numbers came from the company that built the game. The other did not, however many places repeat it.
Pragmatic Play could close this gap tomorrow, the same way it already has for Sweet Bonanza 1000: add a maximum win line to the Basic Game Info block. Until that happens, the honest answer to what Sweet Bonanza pays at its ceiling is that the studio has not said. Not the 21,100x figure that has spread across enough pages to read as settled.
The same standard runs across the rest of this site. [The casino brands this site has verified](/casinos) carry it too: a bonus figure, a licence number, or a payout time ships with the page it came from. Anything unverified is marked absent, not filled in from wherever the rest of the internet got it. Sweet Bonanza's RTP passes that test today, sourced and dated on its own record. Its maximum win, as Pragmatic Play has actually published it, does not exist yet for anyone to check.
Pragmatic Play states 96.48 percent on the game's own page, under a section it labels Basic Game Info. That figure was checked again directly against the studio's page on 2026-09-09 and had not changed since it was first recorded for this site in August 2026.
No. The studio's page for Sweet Bonanza lists the RTP and nothing else: no maximum win multiplier, no volatility label, no hit frequency. That is a deliberate contrast with Sweet Bonanza 1000, where the studio states a maximum win of 25,000x directly on the game page.
A same-day search turns up several independent review pages citing a maximum win between 21,100x and 21,175x, usually alongside a volatility rating the studio also does not publish. None of the pages checked for this piece traces that figure back to Pragmatic Play. It behaves like a figure one page calculated or estimated, which later pages simply repeated.
It is Pragmatic Play's own sequel to Sweet Bonanza, and its game page states a six-by-five grid, a 96.53 percent RTP, and a maximum win of 25,000x directly, all sourced to the studio. Sweet Bonanza 1000 is proof that Pragmatic Play can publish a fuller specification for this game family. It simply has not done so for the original.
Not on its own. RTP describes the share of money returned to players over a very large number of spins, not how often any single spin wins. Sweet Bonanza's own page does not publish a hit frequency figure, so how often a spin actually pays remains unstated alongside the maximum win.
Not a bibliography — these are the addresses behind the numbers this site stores about the 2 records this piece is about, with the date we read each one. Anything the article argues from that we have not stored as a figure is not in this list, and we would rather say that than pad it.
Nothing on this page has been corrected since it was published on 2026-09-09. When something is, it is listed here with the date and what changed — not quietly edited. How we handle a correction.
Two titles on this site are licensed to use the word Megaways. Seventeen more use a similar ways-payout structure and are not. Big Time Gaming explains the difference on its own site, and the seventeen are not hiding it.
PG Soft confirms 96.95 percent on Mahjong Ways 2 and 96.92 percent on the original. Neither page states a ways count, a payline total, or a volatility label.
PAGCOR-licensed casinos rarely lock only the bonus a player claims. The wagering requirement usually covers the whole balance, deposit included, until the combined total clears the multiple.
Mental and Fire in the Hole xBomb are both Nolimit City titles with six-figure win caps. Only one published number explains why one pays its cap roughly seven times more often than the other.