The data we collect, where it comes from, how the score is computed, and what our commercial relationships can and cannot change.
Last updated: September 17, 2026
This page exists so you can check our work. If something here does not match what you see on a page, treat the page as wrong and tell us.
We are an independent comparison and information site. We do not operate a casino, we do not accept bets, and we hold no gambling licence of any kind. We describe operators; we are not one.
We are funded by affiliate commissions. When you follow certain outbound links and later open an account, the operator may pay us. That relationship is disclosed on every page that carries such a link, and the rules below exist to make sure it cannot quietly bend the content.
For each operator we read, in this order of preference:
We do not use another comparison site as a source of fact. If we cannot find a primary source for something, the field stays empty and the page says so.
Every sensitive field carries three things: a source link, a confidence level and the date it was last checked.
A verification badge turns amber after 90 days and red after 180. Operators change their terms without notice, so an old date is a warning, not a detail.
The overall score is a weighted average of eight pillars, each scored from 0 to 10. The weights are published below and the reasons behind every pillar score are printed on each review, so you can see exactly why a number is what it is.
Three rules keep it honest:
Unknown data scores low, not neutral. An operator that publishes nothing about its withdrawal times cannot score as if it were fast. This means an opaque operator ranks below a transparent one, which is deliberate.
Bonus size is not scored. Bonus clarity is. A 200% match with unpublished wagering scores worse than a 50% match whose full terms are linked. The size of an offer tells you what it advertises; the terms tell you what it is worth.
Commercial terms are not an input. Commission rates, cost-per-acquisition deals and conversion data live in an internal dashboard. They are not fields on the casino record and the scoring function cannot read them.
We would rather be precise than pretend the relationship does not exist.
It affects which operators we cover first. We research operators with an affiliate programme sooner, because that is what funds the research. Operators without one are still listed and still scored on the same basis.
It affects whether a link is an affiliate link. Some outbound links pay us; some do not. Either way the link is marked nofollow sponsored and the destination is the operator's real site.
It does not affect the score, the ranking, the wording of a review, or whether a documented problem gets published. If an operator we earn from has a dispute on record, it goes on the page.
On French-language pages we publish information about operators but do not link to them commercially, because online casinos are not authorised by the Autorité Nationale des Jeux and French law prohibits promoting an unauthorised gambling offer to a French audience. Information is legal; advertising is not, so we do one and not the other.
Similarly, we do not present an operator as available in a US state whose rules do not allow it, and we do not describe an offshore licence as though it carried weight with a US regulator.
An automated check runs over our content for the phrases in that last category before anything is published.
If a fact here is wrong, we want to fix it, including when the correction is inconvenient. Operators can write to us as well as readers can. We will correct the field, update the verification date, and where the error was material we will note it on the page.
Is the licence named and verifiable, who holds it, how long the operator has been running, and whether there are documented disputes. A named tier-one regulator scores higher than a licence we cannot look up. Unverified licensing never scores as if it were verified.
Approximate catalogue size, how many distinct categories are offered, the number of studios, and whether the operator runs its own provably-fair originals.
How many currencies are accepted, whether fiat rails or a card on-ramp exist, and how low the minimum deposit is. More options score higher because they reduce the chance you are forced into a method that does not suit you.
Documented processing speed, whether the operator charges its own fee on top of the network fee, and whether limits are published. Speed claims with no source score as unknown, not as fast.
What identity checks are required and when. Fewer mandatory checks score higher on this pillar alone; that is a privacy measure, not a safety endorsement, and no-KYC operators still carry anti-money-laundering obligations they can invoke at any time.
Not the size of the offer. Whether the wagering requirement, the cap and the full terms are published and linked. A small transparent offer outscores a huge one with hidden terms.
Native apps and installable web apps, because a browser-only experience on a phone is measurably worse.
Live chat availability, a reachable email address, and how many languages are covered.
The overall score is the weighted average of the eight pillar scores, each on a 0–10 scale. Unknown data is scored low rather than skipped, so an operator cannot rise up the ranking by publishing less. Where an editor overrides a computed score, the reason is printed on the review.