HomeSlots › Mongol Treasures 2
Endorphina

Mongol Treasures 2 Slot Review

★★★★ 4.4 / 5 — our rating
MBReviewed by Marco Bianchi, Games Reviewer · Updated 17 Aug 2026
RTP
96.06%
Volatility
High
Max Win
Provider
Endorphina

Golden hoards of the Mongol steppe return in Endorphina's sequel to the original Mongol Treasures. This is a high-volatility ride — payouts land in bursts rather than a steady drip, so bankroll depth matters. RTP sits at 96.06%, a touch above the usual 96% baseline, keeping the long-term math competitive.

How Mongol Treasures 2 plays

Mongol Treasures 2 is a high-variance slot, so the rhythm is streaky — quiet stretches broken by heavier hits. It rewards patience and a bankroll sized to survive the cold runs.

Is 96.06% a good RTP?

96.06% puts Mongol Treasures 2 right on the industry standard of around 96% — a fair, typical return with no nasty surprises in the maths. Bear in mind RTP is a long-run theoretical figure, not a promise for any single session.

Who should play it

Mongol Treasures 2 is aimed at players who chase the big multiplier and can stomach the dry spells to get there. If losing streaks tilt you, a lower-variance title on this list will feel better.

What we liked

  • Solid 96.06% RTP, at or above standard
  • Bigger, less frequent wins (high volatility)
  • From Endorphina, a studio we rate

Worth knowing

  • High-volatility play: swings can be sharp — bankroll accordingly
  • Base-game pays can feel thin between features

Want to try Mongol Treasures 2 in demo or real-money mode?

Play at Casumo →

Frequently asked questions

What is the RTP of Mongol Treasures 2?
Mongol Treasures 2 has a published return-to-player (RTP) of 96.06%.
What is the volatility of Mongol Treasures 2?
Mongol Treasures 2 is a high-volatility slot, meaning bigger, less frequent wins.
Who makes Mongol Treasures 2?
Mongol Treasures 2 is developed by Endorphina.

How we review: we verify each game's RTP, volatility and maximum win against provider data, then assess variance, features and value. Ratings reflect our editorial judgement, not commercial arrangements. Read our full methodology →