Six criteria. Six weights. One number per casino.
Every casino on this site is scored the same way. Six criteria, weighted to reflect what actually matters to a player: whether the operator is properly licensed, whether it pays out promptly, and whether the bonus terms are honest. The component scores are derived from verifiable data by a fixed formula, not entered by hand.
Licence and player protection
25%Regulator quality, tiered. UKGC, Spelinspektionen, Spillemyndigheden, KSA, MGA and ANJ score highest; new-format Curaçao (OGL) mid; legacy Curaçao lower; Anjouan low; Costa Rica and unlicensed at the bottom. The highest licence an operator holds sets the score, and the number is checked against the public register.
Payouts and banking
22%Published withdrawal timing by method. E-wallet or instant rail under an hour scores full; Nordic Swish/Trustly rails score high; same-day and 24-hour tiers below that; multi-day bank-only lanes are deducted. Timings come from operator banking pages and community-reported payouts, not marketing claims.
Bonus fairness
20%No-wagering offers score highest. Otherwise the wagering multiplier and basis drive the score: 30x or lower is fair, 40x is mediocre, above that is deducted. Regulated one-bonus markets (Sweden, ANJ) score as fair by design. Where terms are not published, a neutral score is used and the reader is told to verify on site.
Game range
13%Named provider count, parsed from operator data. 70+ providers scores full, scaling down to a neutral default where the count is not itemised. We weight named quality providers because they are the ones most likely to ship at the intended RTP.
Customer support
10%24/7 or live-chat availability scores up from a neutral base. Where support hours are not itemised in our data, a neutral default is used rather than a guess.
Responsible gambling
10%Operators under a licence with a mandatory national self-exclusion scheme (GamStop, Spelpaus, ROFUS, CRUKS, RNIJ) score high, because the tooling is required by law. Operators without a mandatory scheme score lower pending a manual audit of their in-account tools.
How the component scores are derived
The six component scores on every review are computed from fields we can verify: the licence string checked against the public register, the published withdrawal timing, the wagering terms, and the named provider count. The same formula runs on every operator, so two casinos with the same licence tier and the same payout speed get the same safety and payout components. This is deliberate: it means the breakdown is reproducible and not a matter of one reviewer's mood.
Where a field is genuinely unknown, for example an operator that does not itemise its provider count or support hours, we use a neutral default rather than inventing a number, and we say so on the review. The overall headline rating reflects our editorial position on the operator; the component breakdown shows how the verifiable data reads under the method.
Score bands
- 9.0-10 Excellent. Tier-1 licence, verified fast payouts, fair bonus terms, deep catalogue.
- 7.5-8.9 Very good. Solid licence and payouts, minor caveats on bonus or support.
- 6.0-7.4 Good. Acceptable overall, some gaps to note.
- 4.0-5.9 Below par. Weaker licence tier or notable trade-offs. Read the review before depositing.
- Below 4.0 Avoid. Serious concerns about licence, payout or bonus fairness.
What we do not do
- Accept payment for ranking position. Not once, not ever.
- Publish "we tested a withdrawal" claims we did not personally verify.
- Invent component scores. Every number on a review is derived from data or a stated neutral default.
- Score sub-brands separately when we can prove they run on one operator licence.
Method version v1, August 2026. Changes are logged on the blog.