Methodology
How we score crypto casinos
Every number on this site comes from the model below. It is published in full — including the weights and the arithmetic — so you can reproduce any score yourself and disagree with the specific judgement rather than the conclusion.
The model
Five criteria and what they weigh
The weights are fixed and identical for every operator. Trust carries the most because a fast payout is worthless if the operator disputes the withdrawal; support carries the least because good support cannot rescue a bad product.
| Criterion | Weight | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Trust & safeguards | 30% | Licensing, operating history, ownership transparency, dispute record, account security options, and how the terms treat a player who wins. |
| Payout experience | 25% | Observed time from withdrawal request to funds arriving, plus verification friction, stated limits, and whether the process behaves the same on a large win as a small one. |
| Game library | 20% | Breadth and quality of slots, live dealer, and originals; provider mix; and whether provably fair games are genuinely verifiable. |
| Bonus value | 15% | What an offer is actually worth once wagering, game weighting, max-bet caps, and cash-out limits are applied — not the headline number. |
| Support | 10% | Response time, channel availability, and whether an agent resolves a payment question or recites a script. |
Worked example: Stake
Nothing is withheld here. These are the five numbers, the five weights, and the result — which is the score shown everywhere else on the site.
| Criterion | Score | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trust & safeguards | 4.7 | 0.30 | 1.410 |
| Payout experience | 4.9 | 0.25 | 1.225 |
| Game library | 4.9 | 0.20 | 0.980 |
| Bonus value | 4.3 | 0.15 | 0.645 |
| Support | 4.5 | 0.10 | 0.450 |
| Overall score | sum of contributions | 4.7 | |
Scores are held at full precision internally and rounded only for display, so two operators showing the same rounded figure can still be ordered correctly. Ties are broken by the trust sub-score.
How we test
We follow the money, not the lobby
A polished front page proves very little. We work through the whole player journey, and weight what we find toward the part most sites skip — getting money back out.
- 01
Deposit
Open an account and fund it. We record which coins are genuinely available, what the network fees come to, what minimums apply, and how much friction stands between depositing and playing.
- 02
Play
Spend time in the actual product. Library depth and provider mix, how the lobby behaves under use, whether provably fair games are verifiable in practice rather than in principle, and how the interface treats a new player.
- 03
Withdraw
Request a withdrawal and time it end to end. This is the stage that separates operators. We note whether verification is triggered, what documents are demanded, and whether stated limits match observed behaviour.
- 04
Challenge
Read the terms properly and put support under a real question about payments. Fine print, dormancy and confiscation clauses, dispute routes, and whether an agent resolves the question or recites a script.
Independence
What money can and cannot buy here
We earn a commission when a reader opens an account through some of our links. That is the business model, it is disclosed on every page that carries such a link, and pretending otherwise would be the first thing worth distrusting about us.
What that money does not buy is a position, a score, a badge, or a sentence. The evidence is structural rather than a promise: 2 of the 7 operators we rank pay us nothing at all — Roobet and Rollbit — and they are scored on exactly the same criteria as the rest. If commissions drove the rankings, they would not be here.
Where an operator has no commercial link, we say so on the page rather than hiding the row or quietly dropping it. Where we have not verified a fact, we leave it blank rather than filling it with something plausible.
- No paid placements
Position is a consequence of the score. There is no mechanism to buy one.
- Same criteria for everyone
Including the 2 operators that pay us nothing.
- Dead links never shipped
No commercial relationship means no button, and a labelled explanation instead.
- Gaps stated, not filled
Unverified facts are shown as unconfirmed rather than guessed at.
Questions
The awkward ones
You earn commission from some of these operators. How is that compatible with independence?
It is compatible because the scoring is checkable rather than promised. Every score decomposes into five sub-scores with fixed published weights, so a reader who suspects bias can find the exact judgement they disagree with. Two of the operators we rank pay us nothing, one of them sits in the top three, and no operator can buy a position, a badge, or a change of wording. A site that only asserted its impartiality would be asking for more trust than this one requires.
Are the sub-scores objective measurements?
No, and we would rather say so plainly. They are editorial judgements informed by hands-on testing. Payout timings are observed rather than averaged over a large sample; trust reflects a reading of licensing, history, and terms. Publishing the components lets you weigh our judgement instead of taking a single opaque number on faith.
What would make you drop an operator entirely?
Confiscating balances on pretextual grounds, refusing withdrawals from winning players, systematically misrepresenting bonus terms, or operating without any credible licence. Delisting is a stronger signal than a low score and we reserve it for conduct rather than mediocrity.
How often is this re-checked?
Whenever something material changes, and each operator carries the date it was last reviewed. We do not re-publish a score with a fresh date to look current — if the date is old, it means nothing has changed that we know of, which is itself information.
Can an operator get its score changed?
By providing evidence that a fact we relied on is wrong, yes — and we will correct it and say so. By any commercial arrangement, no. Those are the only two routes, and they are not negotiable against each other.
Think a score is wrong? That is what publishing the components is for — tell us which one and why.