Editorial standards
How we review online casinos
Our job is to make risk visible. A polished website or large bonus cannot compensate for unclear ownership, restrictive withdrawals or weak consumer protection.
Three evidence levels
Document review
We check ownership, licences, terms, payments and protection tools using available records.
Account review
We use an account to check registration, verification, controls and customer support.
Payment test
We complete and date a deposit and withdrawal journey, then disclose the amount and result.
If we have not deposited or withdrawn money, the review will say so. Research is never described as hands-on testing.
For the licence stage, follow our casino licence verification checklist to see how we match the operator, domain and regulator record.
Our 100 point scoring system
Ownership and licensing
Legal operator, company details, licence status, regulator and countries served.
Payments and withdrawals
Methods, fees, limits, processing times, verification and credible payment complaints.
Player protection
Limits, time-outs, self-exclusion, reality checks, account history and support links.
Terms and bonus fairness
Wagering, maximum bets, excluded games, withdrawal restrictions and dormant fees.
Complaints and support
Contact routes, complaint procedures, escalation and documented complaint patterns.
Transparency and usability
How clearly essential information and controls work on mobile and desktop.
A serious red flag overrides the numerical result. This stops strong games or bonuses from hiding a fundamental problem.
See how these categories are applied across published operators in our No GamStop Casinos comparison, then open an individual review for its supporting evidence.
Red flags and automatic exclusions
- The operator or ownership cannot be identified.
- A claimed licence cannot be confirmed with the named regulator.
- Withdrawal rules are hidden, contradictory or changed after play.
- The site encourages people to bypass self-exclusion.
- Credible evidence indicates unresolved non-payment without a clear contractual basis.
Editorial independence
Operators cannot buy a higher score, remove supported criticism or guarantee inclusion. Corrections are made when new evidence shows a factual error, not simply because an operator objects.
Corrections and updates
Every review carries a checked date. Operators and readers may submit supporting evidence. We distinguish documented experience from unsupported allegations and record material changes.
Where payment or account evidence points to a dispute, our casino complaints guide explains how to preserve records and identify the relevant escalation route.
Questions about our methodology
Does a high score mean a casino is safe?
No. A score summarises evidence available on the checked date. It cannot guarantee payment or future conduct.
Do you fund an account for every review?
No. Every review states whether it is based on document research, account testing or a completed payment test.
Can an operator pay for a better score?
No. Operators cannot change the criteria, remove supported criticism or guarantee inclusion.
How often are reviews updated?
Material changes to ownership, licensing, payments, terms or player protection trigger a new assessment.
Primary standards we consult
- UK Gambling Commission public register
- UK Gambling Commission complaints process
- UK Gambling Commission ADR guidance
- CAP Code Section 16
Sources checked 30 July 2026.