How We Rate Casinos

Last updated: 26 April 2026 · By: Oliver Smith, Senior iGaming Editor

The number at the top of every casino review on this site — the one that says 4.5/5 or 7.8/10 — is not a vibe. It comes out of an 8-criterion weighted scoring rubric that we apply identically to every operator, partner or not. This page documents the rubric so you can understand where a rating came from, work out whether you weight the criteria the same way we do, and call us out if a published rating does not match the criteria.

Two design choices worth flagging up front. First, the weights add to exactly 100, which keeps the maths transparent. Second, the rubric is unchanged across every casino — we do not give one operator a "Bonuses out of 20" while giving another "Bonuses out of 15" to massage the result. Same scale, same criteria, every time.

The eight criteria, at a glance

Why these weights

The weighting reflects what actually goes wrong for British players, not what looks good in a comparison table. Safety and licensing carry the most weight because a licence breach is the failure mode that costs players the most — confiscated bonuses, withheld balances, accounts locked out of player-protection schemes. The Commission's enforcement archive is a long list of operators who failed on that one criterion alone.

Bonuses, games and withdrawals sit in the 13-15% band because they are what readers come to a review for. Payment range is 12% because the lack of a player's preferred deposit method is a real barrier; weighting it lower than withdrawals reflects that withdrawal performance is the more honest signal of how the operator is run.

Support, mobile and RG sit in the lower band, but none of them are decorative. RG at 7% means a casino with a thin player-protection toolkit cannot achieve a top rating no matter how strong its bonus is. That is the design intent.

How each criterion is scored

Each criterion is scored from 1 to 10 against a defined rubric. The full rubric for each criterion is below. We score on the rubric, not on impressions; the testing notes give us specific facts to map against the bands.

1. Safety & Licensing (20%)

10/10 — UK Gambling Commission licence verified, valid, in good standing. Operator company named, transparent ownership, no unresolved enforcement action. TLS 1.3, modern security headers, RNG audit by reputable lab (eCOGRA, iTech Labs, GLI) with current certificate. 7-8 — UKGC, MGA or equivalent top-tier licence with minor compliance footnotes; or a strong offshore licence (Curaçao under the new regime, Gibraltar, Isle of Man) with full transparency. 4-6 — Active licence but with weaker player-protection scope or a thin track record. 1-3 — Murky licensing, anonymous ownership, or unresolved enforcement issues.

2. Bonuses & Promotions (15%)

10/10 — Genuinely competitive welcome value (the headline figure adjusted for wagering, max bet, eligible games, time limit and max-cashout cap), wagering at or below 35x bonus, max-bet cap at £5 or higher, ongoing promotions for existing players that continue after the welcome ends. 7-8 — Solid value with industry-standard terms (40x wagering, £5 max bet) and a reasonable ongoing programme. 4-6 — Average value, or strong value let down by hostile small print. 1-3 — Bonus that looks attractive but contains traps that prevent most players from clearing it.

3. Game Variety & Quality (15%)

10/10 — 2,000+ games from a deep mix of major and boutique providers (Hacksaw, Nolimit City, Print, Push alongside the mainstream names), genuine live dealer breadth (multiple Evolution studios plus another provider for choice), RTP visible per game, mobile parity. 7-8 — 1,000-2,000 games, good provider mix, capable live offering. 4-6 — Smaller catalogue or thin in one major category. 1-3 — Limited library, narrow provider list, no live dealer or token live offering.

4. Withdrawals (13%)

10/10 — E-wallet withdrawals consistently under 6 hours, card withdrawals under 24 hours, no surprise verification at withdrawal stage (KYC done at registration), no withholding pattern, predictable weekend behaviour. 7-8 — E-wallet under 12 hours, cards 1-2 working days. 4-6 — E-wallet 24-48 hours, cards 3-5 working days. 1-3 — E-wallet over 48 hours or sporadic, cards over 5 working days, evidence of withholding patterns.

5. Payment Methods (12%)

10/10 — Full range for UK players: cards (Visa, Mastercard with Fast Funds), at least three e-wallets, bank transfer, Pay-by-Mobile or Trustly Pay N Play, crypto if relevant to the operator's positioning. No fees on the player side. Sensible deposit and withdrawal limits. 7-8 — Cards plus two or three e-wallets and bank transfer, no fees. 4-6 — Cards plus a single e-wallet, or fees on some methods. 1-3 — Card-only or fees across the board.

6. Customer Support (10%)

10/10 — Live chat 24/7 with sub-2-minute queue, agents who can answer T&Cs questions confidently and accurately, email turnaround under 24 hours, escalation path that works. 7-8 — Live chat with queue time under 5 minutes, agents capable on standard questions, email under 48 hours. 4-6 — Live chat available but slow or thin agents, email 48-72 hours. 1-3 — Limited or absent live chat, email response over 72 hours, agents who cannot answer the simplest questions.

7. Mobile Experience (8%)

10/10 — Polished native app on iOS and Android or mobile web with full feature parity, biometric login, fast cashier, live dealer that works on a phone screen. 7-8 — Capable mobile web with everything reachable in a couple of taps. 4-6 — Mobile web that works but feels like an afterthought. 1-3 — Broken layouts, missing features, slow performance.

8. Responsible Gambling (7%)

10/10 — Deposit, loss and session limits available at registration; reality checks at sensible intervals; time-outs from 24 hours to six weeks; full GAMSTOP integration (UKGC operators); links to GamCare and BeGambleAware visible in the footer; reduction-of-limit takes effect immediately while increases are subject to a cooling-off period. 7-8 — All required tools present and easy to find. 4-6 — Tools present but buried or missing limit categories. 1-3 — Token compliance or missing tools entirely.

Final score formula

The final rating is the weighted sum of the eight criterion scores, then converted to the 1-10 scale shown on the review (or to 1-5 stars for the schema markup, which is just the 10-point figure halved).

A worked example, using the Fortunica Casino UK figures from our April 2026 review:

Rounded to one decimal place: 8.8/10, or 4.4/5 stars in the schema. The review currently shows 4.5/5 because the rounding goes to the nearest half-star at the schema level. We do not adjust the underlying numbers — the contribution column is the data, the star rating is the user-friendly version.

What the final scores mean

• 9.0-10.0 (4.5-5 stars). Top-tier operator. Strong on every criterion, exceptional on at least three. A casino we would recommend to a member of the family.
• 7.5-8.9 (4-4.5 stars). Solid recommendation. Some non-trivial weakness somewhere — usually higher wagering, narrower payment range, or a smaller live offering — but the operator is reliable and well-run.
• 6.0-7.4 (3-4 stars). Acceptable but with reservations. The operator does enough to be worth considering for a player who values whatever it is strong at, but is not a default choice.
• 4.0-5.9 (2-3 stars). We would not personally recommend this casino. The review explains the specific failures so the reader can judge whether they care.
• Below 4.0 (under 2 stars). Outright avoid. Reviews in this band are warnings, not recommendations.

Hard fails — automatic floors

Some failures are serious enough that they cap the maximum achievable rating regardless of how strong the rest of the casino is. Specific cases:

• No valid licence for UK players — the review is reframed as a warning rather than a recommendation, and no headline rating is published.
• Pattern of withheld withdrawals or confiscated bonuses on identical pretexts — Withdrawals score capped at 3, overall rating capped at 5.5/10.
• Active enforcement action by the Commission or equivalent regulator — Safety score capped at 5, overall rating capped at 6.5/10 until the action is resolved.
• Missing GAMSTOP integration on a UKGC-licensed operator — the operator is not licensed to take UK players in the first place; this should be impossible. If we encounter it, we report it to the Commission.
• Marketing targeting at vulnerable players — overall rating capped at 5.0 regardless.

Update policy

Ratings are recalculated whenever a re-test happens — every 3-6 months, or sooner if something material changes. A rating that dropped because a casino tightened its bonus terms or slowed its withdrawals is published exactly as the rubric produced it; we do not soften results to keep partner relationships intact. The history of rating changes is visible to anyone who wants to look — the current rating sits on the review page, but the historical Wayback Machine captures of the same URL show what the rating was at any past date.

Spotted a rating that does not match the rubric? Write to [email protected] with the URL and what you think the discrepancy is. We will look at the underlying scoring sheet and either explain the calculation or correct the page. The reviewer responsible — usually Oliver — replies personally.

The methodology behind the scoring — what we test, how we test it, what we measure — is on How We Test. The editorial framework that keeps the rating system independent from commercial pressure is on Editorial Policy; the specific way our affiliate revenue does (and does not) interact with the rubric is documented on Affiliate Disclosure.