Casino Rating Methodology: Criteria & Weights
A comparison of public information, not a tested reputation or safety rating.
Calculation and publication rules
Base weights: operator and history 15%; payments and withdrawals 25%; support and complaints 15%; game information 15%; offer terms 15%; privacy and account protection 10%; website usability 5%. Reviewed criteria receive 0%, 50% or 100% of their fixed weight. Unknown criteria are excluded from the score denominator.
Unknown items are excluded from the evidence-score denominator. The composite score includes brand awareness; it is not independently tested service quality. Coverage measures documented information. Confidence measures source strength, not safety. Evidence score = weighted points ÷ known weight × 100, plus the licence bonus. Composite score = evidence score + brand awareness bonus, capped at 100. Eligible brands are ranked by this same composite score. Coverage and evidence confidence are shown separately and do not change the ordering.
Provisional ranking requires at least 20% base-information coverage and identifiable sources in at least three categories. Coverage below 50% is marked as thin; ties share a rank. A licence is not a mandatory threshold. Licence information can earn a non-cumulative bonus of 0.5, 1, 2, 3 or 5 points at its highest supported evidence tier; the total is capped at 100. The pilot weights have not been externally calibrated.
Licence evidence tiers: regulator logo only +0.5; image identifies holder and number +1; holder, number and issuer all stated +2; regulator record matches the holder +3; valid record explicitly covers the target domain +5. Game-provider, payment and testing logos do not count as operating-licence evidence. Contradictory or mismatched records suspend the bonus.
How public statements score: a platform's disclosure of its operator or parent group can earn partial points without prior register verification. Payment, verification, support, privacy, account restrictions and game information score according to disclosure completeness, without requiring transaction tests or independent certification. Actual withdrawal success, complaint resolution and security outcomes are not inferred from claims. Source, date and consistency checks remain in place.
Model 4.1 uses 25 mutually exclusive scoring criteria. Repeated pages, screenshots or descriptions of one fact do not add points; a source can support multiple criteria only when it contains distinct facts. Complaint channels, support hours and service languages are scored separately, as are provider information and game categories. Amount, wagering and validity are not reused to score maximum bets or game restrictions. Criteria lacking clear source text, with ambiguous meaning or unresolved conflict remain unknown. All brands use the same 100-point base weights for comparison.
Evidence handling
Retain dated source records and clearly mark unresolved applicability or conflicts. Missing disclosure is unknown and excluded from the score denominator. A zero requires explicit adverse evidence; partial public claims may receive 50, and complete scoped disclosure 100. These anchors do not certify execution or safety. Repeated sources do not add points.
How scores and rankings work
Unknown items are excluded from the evidence-score denominator. The composite score includes brand awareness; it is not independently tested service quality. Coverage measures documented information. Confidence measures source strength, not safety.
Evidence score = weighted points ÷ known weight × 100, plus the licence bonus. Composite score = evidence score + brand awareness bonus, capped at 100. Eligible brands are ranked by this same composite score. Coverage and evidence confidence are shown separately and do not change the ordering.
Platform statements: 60; identified independent sources: 70; documented experience: 80; regulatory evidence: 90; unclassified sources: 35; records without a retained reference: 25. These are editorial source-strength values, not verification probabilities. Each criterion uses its strongest applicable source only. Unresolved conflicts reduce its confidence by 25%. Ranking requires at least 20% coverage across 3 dimensions.
The core score uses 25 public-information criteria with a total weight of 100%. Domain history, external disputes and cryptocurrency payments are supplementary and do not affect core information coverage. Bonus cancellation, game interruptions and marketing opt-out information appear alongside the relevant criteria without separate or duplicate points. Deposit support does not establish confirmed withdrawal support. Explicit adverse terms and dispute records remain visible.
The composite score includes a brand awareness bonus of 0–10 points, capped at 100. Provisional rankings use this same composite score. Evidence confidence, coverage and eligibility remain separate indicators. This is an editorial assessment of brand awareness, not a measured audience statistic.