Methodology & Mission
How We Test
Online Casinos
Every score on this site comes from real money deposited in real accounts, tested against a fixed methodology with zero commercial relationships with the platforms we review. Here is exactly what we do and how we do it.
Why most casino reviews cannot be trusted
The majority of casino review websites operate on a commission model: they earn a percentage of every player deposit made through their links. This creates a direct financial incentive to give positive reviews to the platforms that pay the highest commission rates — not the platforms that treat players best.
Industry-standard affiliate commission is 25–45% of player net losses. A site referring 100 players to a casino that takes £500 per player earns £12,500–£22,500. The incentive to recommend that casino, regardless of its quality, is substantial.
Casino industry awards are issued by affiliate publications. The same organisations that earn commission from casinos vote on which casinos win awards. This is not an independent quality signal.
We have no affiliate agreements with any platform we have reviewed or currently list. Our revenue model does not depend on player sign-ups to any casino. A casino cannot improve its score by paying us anything.
The Testing Process
Six stages, applied to every platform in our database with real money.
Platform Discovery & Selection
We identify platforms through community reports, search data, and organic player discussion — not through casino outreach or partnership requests. If a casino contacts us asking to be reviewed, we review it on our own schedule with extra scrutiny. We currently cover 92 platforms and add new ones when evidence of meaningful player activity exists.
→ Casinos that pay for inclusion are automatically disqualified.
License Verification
Every platform's license claim is verified against the public-facing database of the stated regulatory body. We check: license number, domain coverage, current active status, and whether the specific domain you access is covered (not just a parent company). We repeat this check at each review update.
→ Platforms where verification fails receive a licensing deduction regardless of operational quality.
Real Money Deposits
We deposit real money across at least three test accounts per platform, using different deposit amounts (small, medium, and above typical thresholds). We document every deposit confirmation, balance display, and game behaviour. All deposits are made with crypto — Bitcoin, ETH, USDT, or the most relevant coin for each platform.
→ No platform is reviewed on demo play. Everything is tested with real money at risk.
Withdrawal Testing
We attempt withdrawals across five scenarios per platform: small amounts (under threshold), medium amounts (typical player range), amounts that may trigger manual review, from accounts with accepted bonuses, and from accounts with no bonus. We document processing time, communication quality, and any friction introduced at the withdrawal stage.
→ Withdrawal performance is our highest-weighted scoring category at 30% of the Trust Index.
Bonus Terms Analysis
We read the full terms and conditions of every promotion — not the headline number. We document: wagering requirements, game contribution rates, maximum bet during wagering, expiry periods, sticky vs non-sticky bonus structure, and withdrawal restrictions on bonus winnings. We calculate the expected value of each bonus under standard play assumptions.
→ A 500% bonus with 60x wagering has lower expected value than no bonus at all. We show the maths.
Support Evaluation
We run standardised test queries through every available support channel: general query (account, games), sensitive financial query (withdrawal issue), and simulated dispute (withdrawal blocked by stated terms). We measure first response time, accuracy of first response, and whether financial disputes reached satisfactory resolution.
→ Support that cannot resolve financial disputes scores zero in the support category regardless of response speed.
The Trust Index
A 0–100% score built from five weighted categories. Each category reflects a distinct dimension of player risk.
Withdrawal Reliability
30%Does the platform pay? Speed, consistency across amounts, absence of manufactured friction, and resolution of delayed payments.
Licensing & Accountability
25%License verifiable against public registry, single-brand vs multi-brand structure, beneficial ownership identifiable, regulatory compliance history.
Bonus & Terms Fairness
20%Wagering requirement level, game contribution transparency, short-expiry harm patterns, sticky bonus mechanics, retroactive terms changes.
Support Resolution
15%Response time, accuracy, financial dispute resolution rate, escalation path availability, communication during processing delays.
Responsible Gambling
10%Deposit limits, self-exclusion tools, reality checks, problem gambling resources, absence of harm-inducing promotional mechanics.
The Verdict System
Three categories with fixed thresholds. The thresholds are set before testing and do not move to accommodate any platform.
Passed every major test category without disqualifying failures. Licensing verified. Withdrawals confirmed across all test scenarios. Bonus terms disclosed and fair. Support resolves financial disputes. Only 3 of 92 platforms we tested cleared this threshold.
Operational issues confirmed in testing but not a sustained pattern-of-harm. May be usable for players who understand the specific documented risks. We always detail exactly what failed and what the consequence is for you.
Systematic problems documented across multiple categories. Includes unverifiable licensing, confirmed non-payment, fraud reports, or pattern-of-harm bonus mechanics. We recommend against depositing. If you have funds at an Avoid-rated platform, withdraw immediately.
Distribution in our database: Of 92 platforms tested, 3 are Safe Choice (3%), 52 are Use Caution (57%), and 37 are Avoid (40%). The distribution reflects the actual state of the crypto casino industry — not a curve forced to produce balanced results. Most platforms have meaningful documented problems.
Editorial Principles
The rules that govern how we operate — not aspirations, but fixed constraints.
Zero affiliate agreements
We have no revenue-sharing, CPA, or paid placement arrangements with any casino on this site or any casino we have ever reviewed. This is not negotiable.
Scores cannot be purchased
A casino cannot improve its Trust Index score by paying us, partnering with us, or advertising anywhere on this site. Scores change only when operational behaviour changes and we retest.
Methodology is fixed before testing
We document our scoring criteria before beginning a review cycle. We do not adjust methodology retrospectively to justify a preferred conclusion.
All complaints are investigated
If a player reports a problem with a platform we have rated Safe Choice, we investigate it directly. Confirmed new problems trigger a score review. Every verified complaint changes the score.
Casinos can improve their score
A Use Caution rating is not permanent. If a platform addresses the specific documented failures — improves withdrawal consistency, updates bonus terms, fixes support escalation — we retest and update. Scores move both ways.
Reviews are dated and updated
Every review shows a last-tested date. Casino quality is not static. A platform that paid well in 2022 and doesn't now should not carry a 2022 review. We update on a fixed cycle and when triggered by events.
What we do not do
The result of this methodology
3 platforms out of 92 are Safe Choice
Moonbet (73%), Duel.com (68%), and Cloudbet (65%) are the only three platforms in our 92-casino database that passed every major testing category. The other 89 have documented problems of varying severity. The full ranked list is below.
View all 92 ranked casinos