Our process
How We Compare Casinos
A step-by-step walkthrough of what we check, what we do not check, and how to read our editorial scores.
We compare UK casino operators using the same structured process for every brand. The goal is to give you a consistent, comparable view — not a sales pitch for whichever operator pays us the most.
What you will find below is a plain explanation of that process. For the formal policy version, see the Editorial Review Policy.
Confirm UKGC licensing
We only include operators that hold, or have applied for, a UK Gambling Commission licence. We check the UKGC public register to confirm status before a listing is published. Any operator found to be without an active UKGC licence is removed from comparisons.
Review terms and offers
We visit each operator's promotions section and read the associated terms and conditions. We are specifically looking at whether key conditions (wagering requirements, game restrictions, expiry dates) are visible before a player opts in, not buried in footnotes.
Assess the game library
We review the game catalogue for breadth — slots, live casino, table games, and other categories — and note the major software providers. We are not rating individual game quality, but the range and variety available.
Check payment options
We note which deposit and withdrawal methods are listed, whether processing times are disclosed, and whether UK-standard methods (debit card, popular e-wallets) are available.
Test mobile functionality
We access each site on mobile devices to assess whether the core experience — game access, account management, deposits — works without requiring an app download, and whether a mobile app is available.
Evaluate responsible gambling tools
We check whether deposit limits, session controls, loss limits, cooling-off periods, and self-exclusion are reachable from account settings without excessive navigation. We also check whether GAMSTOP and BeGambleAware are signposted.
Form an editorial score
We compile the findings across all six criteria into a single editorial score out of 10. This is a summary estimate, not a weighted algorithmic calculation. It represents our collective assessment based on what is publicly available.
Reading our scores
Scores run from 0 to 10 and appear as a single decimal (e.g. 7.4, 8.1). They are not broken into sub-scores per criterion — they represent an overall editorial assessment. A score of 8.0 or above generally means we found the operator well-run across most criteria. Scores below 7.0 tend to reflect gaps in one or more areas.
Scores are not official, regulatory, or consumer protection ratings. They are editorial estimates, formed from publicly available information at a point in time. They can change when we update a review. They should inform comparison, not be treated as a guarantee of operator quality.
We do not set every operator to a similar high score to make all options look attractive. If we find genuine differences between operators, those differences should show in the scores.
What we do not check
- Real-time payout percentages — we use publicly stated RTP information where available, but do not independently audit game outcomes.
- Withdrawal speeds from personal accounts — we note stated processing times but do not test from real accounts.
- Customer service call quality — we note the availability of support channels but do not score call handling.
- Complaint resolution rates — we do not have access to UKGC or ADR complaint data.
- Individual player experiences — we do not use customer testimonials as part of editorial scores.
