Fat Santa vs Fat Rabbit: One Slot Maker, Same Numbers

Push Gaming Prints the Same Numbers

Push Gaming's own game pages describe Fat Santa and Fat Rabbit with the same figures. Both list a 5x5 grid of 50 lines, an RTP of 96.45% or 94.15%, a "HIGHEST OBSERVED WIN" of 3,844x and a Bonus Buy. Put the two pages side by side and the numbers can't tell the games apart.

That's the finding of this comparison, and it is a finding about the studio's publishing practice rather than about the underlying mathematics of either slot. Fat Rabbit came first, in March 2018. Fat Santa followed in November 2018, with the studio's press release "Fat Santa has arrived" dated 27 November 2018.

The One Label That Differs

Volatility is the only published figure that differs. The studio calls Fat Santa "Mid - High" and Fat Rabbit "High". Neither page explains the scale behind those words, and the client we read prints no volatility at all.

A different label on an unexplained scale is thin ground for a choice. It may reflect a real difference in how the two games pay. Nothing on either page shows it, and Fat Santa's hit rate is published nowhere.

Fat Santa, Measured First-Hand

Fat Santa we know from its own client. We opened the studio's demo on 2 November 2026, read every rules screen and played 96 paid spins at the default 0.50 bet. The GAME INFO screen showed server version 2.24.0 and client version 10.21.6, together with a return to player of 96.45% for the game and 96.59% for the Bonus Buy.

The paytable at 0.50 tops out at 10.00 for five elves, a line prize of 20x the bet. It lists five Santas at the same figure without saying how that line forms. Free Games open only when Fat Santa lands on reel one beside at least one Wild Christmas Pie. They award 5 spins and add +3, +2, +2 and +1 as the pie meter fills.

Our Fat Santa Session at a 0.50 Bet

Read on 2 Nov 2026; the maker can change a screen without saying so.

A sample of 96 spins says nothing about a 96.45% return. The net gain of 24.54 was luck, three rounds of it. The table stays because it is the one part of this comparison built from our own play.

The Gaps on the Fat Rabbit Side

Fat Rabbit we have not opened. We did not load its client, so its paytable, its feature rules and its Bonus Buy price are unconfirmed here. Everything we say about it comes from the studio's game page. That page describes the trigger in one line, a rabbit plus a wild carrot, and a carrot meter that makes the rabbit grow and awards extra spins. It also names a Harvest Feature: a tractor, triggered at random, ploughs through the reels and unearths several wild carrots, much as Fat Santa's sleigh drops pies.

That gap runs in one direction only. Any page ranking the two games on mechanics is working from a client it opened or from a catalogue, and the catalogues are a shaky base, because for Fat Santa alone they disagree with each other by sixty percent.

Catalogue figures for Fat Santa run to 6,400x, 6,405x and 10,233x, against a studio page that prints none of them. We'd rather leave a cell empty than fill it from that pool.

Why 3,844x Proves Little

The shared 3,844x is a "HIGHEST OBSERVED WIN", not a published maximum, and the identical figure on two different games suggests a template value rather than two coincident records. For Fat Santa, the client has no maximum-win line, and the platform config shipped with the demo sets rulesShowMaximumPrize to false.

So neither game has a ceiling a reader can rely on.

What Fat Santa's paytable does state is a top line prize of 20x the bet, 10.00 at 0.50. The best logged free spin in our 96 spins paid 9.02, or 18x. Those are real numbers with a known source. The 3,844x on both pages is not one of them.

Two RTPs on Both Pages

Both studio pages list the same two returns, 96.45% and 94.15%. Each adds that RTPs may vary per casino and that the figure shows in the user panel and on the loading screen. For Fat Santa the gap is 2.30 percentage points. In Fat Santa's demo neither the panel nor the loading screen showed a figure; the GAME INFO screen did, before the first spin, and read 96.45%.

Fat Santa's Bonus Buy adds a third figure, 96.59%, a little above its base game. Whether Fat Rabbit's purchase has a return of its own, we did not check. That would take its client.

Which One to Open in a Demo

If the choice is between these two, we'd open Fat Santa first. The only reason is that it's the one whose rules we've read, which is a statement about what is known rather than a claim that it's the better game. Someone who prefers the studio's "High" label could reasonably pick Fat Rabbit instead.

Either way, the first look costs nothing. Fat Santa's demo on the studio's site plays in FUN credits from a 1,000.00 balance, so reading its rules risks nothing.

We do not recommend choosing between Fat Santa and Fat Rabbit on the studio's figures alone: they are the same figures. Fat Rabbit's studio page carries a Play Game button, as Fat Santa's does; we did not open the client behind it.

If neither slot's numbers settle it, open the Fat Santa demo and read its PAYTABLE and GAME INFO screens. Judge the game by rules you've seen, not by a 3,844x printed twice.