We check the licence before we rank the casino

Six weighted sections: licensing and safety, payments, bonus terms, games, mobile, and support. The weights are published on our methodology page and they are the same for every review. The total is calculated from the sections, never chosen first and filled in backwards.

No, and that is the honest answer. We work from public pages and we did not open accounts, so every payout time here is the operator's stated figure and it is labelled as stated. Support was tested once, on the single brand whose live chat answered without an account.

We earn commission when a reader signs up through some of our links. That relationship does not change a score, and our how we make money page explains the separation. The disclosure sits on every page that carries a commercial link.

It is the weighted average of the six sections. The visible range across the site is 6.1 to 7.7, and 0 of the 20 brands sit under 6. There is no hidden floor: a low score means the review explains what is wrong, not that the brand was quietly dropped.

Every review carries the date we last checked it and an update log that dates each change, including corrections we make after publication. We do not promise a weekly sweep we cannot evidence.

We publish a market page only where we can verify the regulator position and the local payment methods. That is 9 markets we can defend rather than thirty we cannot.

Usually we do not say, and that is deliberate. Counting a lobby properly needs an account, so we publish a game total only where we counted it ourselves. That is 2 of 20 reviews. Everywhere else we name the studios we saw instead of repeating a marketing figure.

Screenshots of lobbies, cashiers and terms pages are real captures with the date in the caption. Diagrams and cover images are generated or drawn by us and labelled as illustrations. A generated image never stands in for a screenshot.