On this page
.png){kind=logo}
Push Gaming Software & 6 Online Casinos Reviewed
On this page
Introduction
Push Gaming is a London and Malta studio founded in 2010 that spent its early years porting land-based content online before pivoting in 2015 to developing its own slots. In 2023 MGM Resorts announced that its wholly owned subsidiary LeoVegas would acquire the majority of Push Gaming Holding Limited, and the deal completed later that year. Push continues to operate as a distinct studio with its own management and its own remote gaming server, and appears in MGM's filed list of majority-owned subsidiaries. It is not an independent company.
It holds a B2B critical supply licence from the Malta Gaming Authority, a combined remote operating licence from the UK Gambling Commission, a Class II licence in Romania, a supplier registration in Ontario, and a transactional waiver in New Jersey. Its 2020 licensing announcement names BMM Testlabs as its testing partner. No Push-specific certification report is publicly downloadable, so the testing claim rests on the provider's own announcement rather than on a retrievable lab document.
The product is mobile-first HTML5 slot content delivered on Push's own remote gaming server. Two features matter to a player's expectation rather than to the presentation. First, most titles ship in two RTP configurations, and the operator chooses which one is deployed. Second, the active figure is displayed on the game loading screen and in the user panel, which is unusually candid and is the most useful thing in the catalogue.
One fact shapes everything that follows: Push Gaming ships slots and nothing else. There is no Push blackjack, roulette, baccarat, video poker, keno, craps, or live dealer product. Affiliate sites that list "Push Gaming Live Blackjack" with specific house edges are describing someone else's games, bundled by a shared platform. Those listings are wrong, and a reader should not go looking for a Push table game on the strength of them.
That means there is nothing here I can solve. A slot's theoretical return depends on reel strips and symbol weights that no studio publishes, and running a few thousand demo spins measures nothing useful. Every percentage below is Push's own published figure rather than an independently derived one. What Push does publish, unusually, is a great deal of RTP information on its own website, and that turns out to be enough for some genuinely useful arithmetic about what those figures cost.
Push Gaming Casinos
Filter
More filters
If we have jumped the gun, you can remove that filter by clicking here.
Online Slots
RTP Configurations
Push publishes two return figures for essentially every current title. Seventy titles in the current catalogue carry a pair. The higher figures sit between 96.22% and 97.03%; the lower between 94.01% and 94.67%.
Operators choose which one you get. Push states plainly that RTP varies by casino, and its games display the active figure on the loading screen and in the user panel. That disclosure is genuinely good practice, and it puts the burden where it belongs: look at the loading screen before you spin, because the number on the provider's website is not necessarily the number you are playing.
The gap matters more than it looks. A percentage point of RTP is not a percentage point of cost.
Push Gaming RTP Configurations
| Game | High | Low | Loss per 100, high | Loss per 100, low | Cost of the low setting |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Razor Shark | 96.70% | 94.06% | 3.30 | 5.94 | 1.80x |
| Wild Swarm | 97.03% | 94.67% | 2.97 | 5.33 | 1.79x |
| Fish 'n' Nudge Big Catch | 96.46% | 94.27% | 3.54 | 5.73 | 1.62x |
| Wild Swarm Triple Hive | 96.48% | 94.33% | 3.52 | 5.67 | 1.61x |
| 10 Pharaohs | 96.26% | 94.47% | 3.74 | 5.53 | 1.48x |
Razor Shark on the low setting costs a player 80% more per spin than the same game on the high setting. Across the catalogue the median penalty is 1.55x. Nothing on screen changes. The reels, the paytable and the features are identical. The difference is engineered into the symbol weights behind them.
Over 500 spins at one unit, the best published configuration in the catalogue expects to lose 14.85 units and the worst 29.70, a gap of 14.85 units on the same stake.
The highest published figure anywhere in the current catalogue is Wild Swarm at 97.03%, and it is the only title above 97%. Everything else clusters between 96.22% and 96.60%. That is a narrow band, and it is worth knowing that the studio's headline number and its floor differ by less than a point at the top while the low configurations sit more than two points beneath.
Ante Bets and Stake Multipliers
Several Push titles offer a modifier: pay more per spin and get better odds of triggering the feature. Three of them publish enough to evaluate properly, and the answer is more interesting than the marketing or the cynicism would suggest.
The modifiers are genuinely better value per unit staked. Dino P.D.'s ante costs 20% on top of the base bet and moves the published return from 96.38% to 96.50%, taking the house edge from 3.62% down to 3.50%. Risk the same 1.20 either way and the ante loses 0.0420 against 0.0434 for the base game at that stake, 3.31% less. The 10 Pharaohs and 10 Flaming Bisons Push-Up modes behave the same way: the 5x4 grid cuts the edge from 3.74% to 3.54%, and even the 5x5 grid improves on the base rate.
Push Gaming Wager Modifiers
| Game | Mode | Stake | Published RTP | House edge per unit staked |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dino P.D. | Base | 1.00 | 96.38% | 3.62% |
| Dino P.D. | Ante Bet +20% | 1.20 | 96.50% | 3.50% |
| 10 Pharaohs | Base | 1.00 | 96.26% | 3.74% |
| 10 Pharaohs | Push-Up 5x4 | 2.50 | 96.46% | 3.54% |
| 10 Pharaohs | Push-Up 5x5 | 5.00 | 96.31% | 3.69% |
Credit where it is due: a modifier that lowers the house edge is not a trap, and plenty of ante bets elsewhere in the industry are worse than the game they modify.
The catch is exposure, not rate. Turning on the Dino P.D. ante puts 20% more money at risk on every spin. The 5x4 Push-Up puts 150% more at risk, and the 5x5 puts 400% more. The rate improves; the amount you are betting improves it from a much larger base. A player who was comfortable at one unit a spin and switches to the 5x5 mode is now a five-unit-a-spin player, and the 0.05-point improvement in house edge will not be what determines how the session goes.
And within the Push-Up menu, paying more buys a worse rate. The 5x4 grid costs 2.5 times the base stake and returns 96.46%. The 5x5 grid costs five times the base stake and returns 96.31%, which is 0.15 points worse at double the price. If you want a Push-Up mode on these games, the cheaper one is the better deal, and the more expensive one is the only modifier in this catalogue that gets worse as it gets pricier.
So: take the modifier if you were going to bet that much anyway. Do not take it as a way to improve your return while quietly quintupling your stake, and do not assume the biggest button is the best one.
One caveat on this section. Push says the Dino P.D. ante "does not contribute to the bet," which leaves ambiguity about whether the 96.50% is measured against the full 1.20 staked or against the 1.00 base alone. I have read it as the full 1.20. The alternative implies a house edge of 19.58% on money staked, more than three times the worst edge anywhere in the catalogue, and not a figure a UKGC or MGA licensed slot would carry. The reading is an inference from that consequence, not something I have confirmed on a rules screen.
Maximum Wins
Push publishes a figure for most games that is easy to misread. On many title pages the number is highest observed win, not maximum win. Those are different things. An observed win is a statistic about what has happened; a maximum win is a cap written into the game. A game showing "10,000x" as an observed result may well be capable of more, or may be capped at exactly that figure. The page does not say which.
Explicit theoretical maxima do appear for a handful of titles, including Big Bamboo 2 at 75,000x, and Giga Jar, Goat Getter and Big Bite at 10,000x. For the rest, treat the number as history rather than as a limit.
The secondary sites are worse than unhelpful here. One 2026 review page gives Razor Shark's maximum as 85,475x in its specification table and 50,000x in its own FAQ. A demo host gives 500,000x. Three incompatible figures, none of them from Push. I am not going to pick one, and neither should a reader.
Neither the maximum absolute payout nor the behaviour when a feature reaches its cap mid-play is disclosed anywhere I could find. For a studio building games around extreme multipliers, that is a real gap.
Jackpots
Several current titles advertise jackpots, and the word is doing less work than it appears to. Triple Rampage calls its four jackpots fixed. Razor Shark Jackpots publishes Mini at 10x, Minor at 25x, Maxi at 50x, Major at 500x and Mega at 5,000x, scaled to the selected stake. These are fixed multipliers, not a pooled progressive meter that grows with play.
That distinction matters to anyone hunting a progressive at a favourable level: there is no meter to watch here, and no break-even point to calculate. A delisted older title did carry pooled jackpots, but it is not in the current catalogue and the current catalogue should not be read through it.
What I Could Not Verify
Push's own pages carry the RTP figures for about 70 current titles, which is more transparency than most studios offer. But roughly 18 current titles have no provider-published figure I could locate, and their returns circulate only on affiliate sites. Those are excluded from everything above.
Several titles advertise a bonus buy or ante without publishing its price, its modified return, or either. 10 Swords discloses a 50x purchase price but no purchase-specific return. Mad Blast, Retro Sweets, Generous Jack, Giga Jar, Razor Returns and Razor Shark Jackpots each disclose part of the picture. None of them can be assessed the way Dino P.D. and the two "10" titles can, and I have not estimated the missing halves.
Some visually distinct titles publish identical RTP pairs and identical observed wins: Bait 'n' Bank and Santa's Vault, Fire Pig Push Ways and Big Bite Push Ways, 3 Liberty Eagles and 3 Magic Pots. That is a strong hint of shared mathematics behind different art, but a hint is not a finding, and Push publishes no model identifier that would settle it.
And one conflict worth naming: a secondary source claims Razor Shark Jackpots also ships in 92.20% and 85.39% configurations. Push's own page lists only 96.38% and 94.30%. If the lower figures are real they would be by far the worst returns in the catalogue. I could not confirm them.
Conclusion
Push Gaming is a slots-only studio that publishes more return information than most of its competitors and deserves credit for putting the active figure on the loading screen where a player can actually see it. That single design decision does more for an informed player than any amount of marketing about volatility.
The mathematics available to an outside reviewer is thin by necessity. No reel strips means no independent verification of any return, and anyone claiming to have calculated a Push RTP from the outside is not telling the truth. What can be checked is the arithmetic around the disclosed figures, and it produces two warnings worth carrying to the machine.
First, the configuration you are served matters more than which game you choose. The spread between a title's two published settings is worth up to 80% of your expected loss, and the games look identical either way. Check the loading screen.
Second, the wager modifiers are better than they look on rate and worse than they look on exposure. Every one that publishes enough to check lowers the house edge per unit staked, but the 5x5 Push-Up on the "10" titles returns less than the 5x4 while costing twice as much, and any of them will multiply what you have at risk per spin. Judge them by the rate at equal money risked, which is the only comparison that tests the modifier rather than the size of the bet.