A ranking is only useful if you can see what produced it. This page sets out every input to our scores, what each is worth, what disqualifies a casino outright, and where the limits of our testing sit.
Four categories, weighted by how much each one affects a player who actually deposits.
| Category | Weight | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Verification behaviour | 30% | Whether the stated policy matches what happens at the cashier |
| Payout behaviour | 30% | Approval window and transfer time, tracked per method |
| Licence and accountability | 25% | Verified registration, regulator quality, complaints route |
| Bonus terms | 15% | Whether an advertised offer is realistically usable |
Game library size is deliberately absent. Every casino in this market carries thousands of titles from the same studios, so it separates almost nothing. Where a lobby is genuinely thin or genuinely exceptional we say so in the review text instead of scoring it.
We record what a casino asks for at four points: registration, first deposit, a small withdrawal and a large one. The score reflects consistency rather than leniency.
A casino that states its verification threshold up front and then applies it scores well, even if that threshold is low. A casino that advertises no checks and then demands a passport for a small cashout scores badly, because the problem is the mismatch rather than the check.
We also record what happens after documents are submitted: acknowledgement, turnaround, and whether rejections come with a reason.
Two numbers, always separated, because operators routinely quote only the friendlier one.
The approval window is the time between requesting a withdrawal and the casino approving it. This is where the variation lives and where delays are almost always caused.
The transfer time is what happens after approval, and it is mostly a property of the payment method rather than the casino. We track crypto, e-wallet and card separately, because averaging them produces a figure that describes nobody's experience.
We do not publish a precise average payout time from a small number of observations. Where we have enough data to state a range with confidence, we state the range. Where we do not, the review says so. A specific-looking number derived from two withdrawals is worse than no number at all, because it invites a decision it cannot support.
Every casino's stated licence is checked against the issuing regulator's own public register, not against the badge in its footer. We confirm the number resolves, the company name matches the terms and conditions, and the status is current.
Beyond existence, we weigh the regulator. A jurisdiction with a published complaints procedure and a record of acting on it counts for more than one that issues quickly and does little else. Our licensing guide explains the differences.
Independent testing certification from a laboratory such as eCOGRA, iTech Labs or GLI adds to the score where it is verifiable on the laboratory's own site.
We open the full terms and extract five figures: wagering multiplier and what it multiplies, maximum bet during playthrough, maximum cashout, game weighting, and expiry.
The score reflects usability, not size. A 100% offer with clear terms and a workable maximum bet outranks a 500% package with a punitive cap. We also check whether the terms are consolidated or scattered, because a rule you cannot find is a rule that will catch you. The bonus terms guide shows the arithmetic we use.
These are not scored. They remove a site from consideration regardless of everything else.
A licence number that does not resolve on the regulator's register, or resolves to an unrelated company. Any request for a deposit, fee or payment before a withdrawal is released. Terms altered retroactively after a player wins. A pattern of unanswered withdrawal requests. Any request for a full card number, PIN or online banking credentials.
The shortlist is reviewed on a rolling basis and re-checked when something changes materially: a licence transfer, a change of payment processor, a shift in verification policy, or a run of consistent complaints. Positions move. A casino that was second last quarter is not automatically second now.
Every page carries a last-updated date. If it has not moved, neither has our assessment.
Worth stating openly. Our accounts are individual accounts, not a statistical sample — behaviour towards a large winner may differ from behaviour towards us. We cannot audit a random number generator ourselves and rely on third-party certification where it exists. And we cannot see how a casino handles a serious dispute unless one occurs.
What we can do is check the things that are checkable, state which is which, and change the ranking when the evidence changes. Where we get something wrong, tell us on the contact page and we will correct it.