About this site: the single question it answers, and its limits

This site answers one question — how much of its own rulebook each crypto casino carrying Aviator was willing to put in writing — and it answers it from the operators' own documents. Everything a ranking normally promises beyond that is missing on purpose.

Last updated: October 3, 2026

Comparison sites in this field usually promise more than they can deliver and then quietly deliver something else. This one is narrow on purpose, and the narrowness is easier to judge if the scope is stated before the ranking rather than after it.

The question this site answers

Aviator is one game from one studio. It behaves identically in every lobby that carries it: the same 97% return, the same committed seed, the same two bet panels. Nothing a casino does changes the game.

What a casino does change is everything around the game — when it will ask for documents, at what threshold, how long a player has to supply them, what it will cap a withdrawal at, and whether the licence in its footer resolves in the issuing authority's register under the domain actually in use. All of that is written down, publicly, by the operator. Reading it is the one thing a site like this can do properly, so it is the only thing this one claims to do.

What a figure here rests on

Three sources, and nothing else: the operator's own published terms, the licence issuer's register, and the studio's published figures for the game.

In practice that means clause numbers. When a page states a cap or an identity rule, it names the clause that sets it, so a reader who doubts the figure can open the same document and check. That is the only kind of authority available to a site that does not play. The method, and what each of the five checks is actually testing, is on how the ranking is built.

Comparison sites are not a source here. A number copied from another ranking carries whatever error that ranking had, plus a new one, and it cannot be checked by anybody.

An empty cell here means unpublished. It does not mean zero and it does not mean unlimited, and two of these three blanks are what a player would need to size a worst case.

Three things that would make this site wrong

Worth saying outright, because they are the realistic failure modes rather than hypothetical ones.

A clause was rewritten. Operators renumber and revise without notice. This is why every figure is dated, and it is the most common way a page here goes stale.
A register entry changed. Licences lapse, transfer between holding companies, or list a different domain than the one in use. A confirmation read in one month is not a confirmation in the next.
A document was read wrongly. Terms are written to be hard to read, and a clause with exceptions elsewhere in the same document can be summarised into something misleading. Quoting the number is the defence, because it lets a reader catch the mistake.

None of those is fixed by a byline. They are fixed by a reader opening the document, which is why every figure carries the clause number that lets them.

What is deliberately absent

No photographs, because a portrait is not evidence of anything a reader can check. No invented credentials — no former regulators, no decades at an operator, no laboratory background — because the only expertise this site needs is the patience to read a document to the end, and the people who do it are described by exactly that. No “we deposited and withdrew” claims, because no account at any listed casino has been funded. No payout-speed ranking, because speed cannot be read from a document and would have to be borrowed. No published top multiplier for Aviator, because Spribe does not print one. No prediction of any kind.

The commercial arrangement is also not absent — it is described in full on partner links rather than compressed into a line of small print.

How that evidence survives being carried into six other languages is on the editors page.

The reader's recourse

What a visit to these pages reveals, and to whom, is on the privacy notice.

Everything here is checkable by somebody who does not trust it, which is the point of the format. A clause number can be opened. A register entry can be searched. A published return figure can be found on the studio's own page. Where this site and a document disagree, the document wins and the page is what needs correcting.

If play has stopped being a pastime, none of the above is the relevant page; staying in control is.

Frequently asked questions

Why is there no overall score out of ten?

Because a single figure would have to blend things that can be read from a document with things that cannot. Bonus value, support quality and cashier speed would all have to be guessed or borrowed from elsewhere, and one guessed component makes the whole number untraceable. Five checks that each point at a clause can be argued with; a composite ten cannot.

Does a top position mean a casino is recommended?

No. The order measures disclosure, which is a real quality and a narrow one. An operator that writes down exactly when it will ask for documents has told a player something useful, and that is all the position asserts. Nothing here tells anyone to open an account anywhere.

Why are some figures missing rather than estimated?

Because the operator did not publish them. A blank cell says the document is silent, which is itself information about that operator. Filling it from a comparison site would hide the silence and quietly make every other figure on the page less trustworthy, since a reader could no longer tell which were read and which were borrowed.

How current are the figures?

Each carries the date it was read. Terms get rewritten without notice, clause numbers shift and licences transfer between companies, so a dated figure is a record of what a document said on a day rather than a permanent fact. When the current document disagrees, the document is right.