How We Rate Casinos
Every casino on this site is assessed against the same nine criteria, in the same order, with the same weights. The list below is the whole method — there is no private adjustment applied afterwards.
The criteria
| Criterion | What is assessed | Weight |
| Licence and regulation | Valid licence from a recognised authority, publicly verifiable on the regulator’s own register | Critical |
| Withdrawal speed and limits | Processing time by method, minimum and maximum cashout, length of the pending period | High |
| Bonus terms | Wagering requirement, game contribution rates, time limits, maximum bet restrictions | High |
| Reputation and complaints | Patterns in player feedback, payout disputes, any regulatory action | High |
| Game library | Studios represented, variety, live dealer availability, performance | Medium-high |
| Payment methods | Deposit and withdrawal options, crypto, e-wallets | Medium |
| Customer support | Live chat hours, quality of answers, handling of escalated complaints | Medium |
| Responsible gambling tools | Deposit limits, self-exclusion, session controls, links to support organisations | Medium |
| Mobile | Browser performance, app availability, loading speed on a phone | Medium |
How the criteria combine
A casino earns its position by performing across the whole list, not by excelling in one place and underdelivering everywhere else. A generous welcome offer attached to a 60x wagering requirement is not a strong candidate. Fast withdrawals from a site with a thin library beat the reverse, but neither alone carries an operator.
The licence is the gate rather than a scoring line. An operator that cannot produce a licence verifiable on the regulator’s public register is excluded from consideration regardless of everything else. Not all licences weigh the same either: a regulator with real enforcement capability and a working complaints procedure means something different from one that issues paper.
Reputation is a live figure
Reputation is re-checked, not awarded once. An operator that runs well for two years and then starts delaying cashouts or closing accounts without explanation falls in the rankings. Past performance does not carry indefinitely, and a badge earned in one year is not evidence about the next.
What we can verify, and what we cannot
It is worth being exact about the limits of any review site, this one included.
- A licence can be verified. The regulator’s register is public; the check takes two minutes and either passes or does not.
- Published terms can be verified. Wagering requirements, contribution rates and withdrawal limits are written down by the operator and can be read against what the marketing says.
- Return figures can be quoted, not guaranteed. The same game ships in several configurations, and the operator chooses which to install. The only reliable source is the information screen inside the game at the casino you are actually playing at. Any figure elsewhere — including on this page — describes the version we sampled.
- Withdrawal speed is a claim plus a pattern. The published processing time is the operator’s own statement; what makes it credible or not is whether complaints contradict it.
Where these limits apply, the review says so rather than presenting an estimate as a measurement.
When a rating changes
A score moves when the underlying facts move: a licence lapses or is added, bonus terms are rewritten, a pattern of withheld payouts appears, an operator is sanctioned by its regulator. Ratings are not adjusted for commercial reasons — see the affiliate disclosure for what our commercial arrangements do and do not touch.
Found a criterion applied wrongly, or a fact that has since changed? Write to us via the contact page.