How we rank the twelve casinos: five questions, one entry rule, dated sources

Every casino on this site earned its position by clearing the same five questions, asked of the same document — its own terms. This page sets out what those five questions are, what counts as an answer, and what sits outside the score entirely.

Last updated: October 3, 2026

How we rank the twelve casinos on this site comes down to five fixed questions, asked of one document each time: an operator's own terms, not a marketing page or a review written elsewhere. A casino only reaches the list at all once a separate entry rule is cleared first, and every cell that follows carries a clause, a date and an address rather than a general impression. The order those five questions actually produce is published separately from this page, one write-up per operator.

How we rank: five questions applied to one document

The first question is whether an identity-check clause is printed in the terms at all. Bitcasino.io answers yes, with a clause tied to a specific trigger event. Every one of the twelve ranked casinos on this site clears this particular question — it is the narrowest of the five, and the one most operators write into their terms as a matter of course — which is exactly why the remaining four questions do the actual work of separating a four-point score from a one-point one. That licence-register question is one slice of a wider comparison, laid out in full on the crypto casino aviator page.

The second question is whether that clause names the moment the check begins — at sign-up, on a trigger event, or only once a withdrawal is requested. Sportsbet.io names the moment directly: its general terms (cl. 6.5, 6.6) tie the check to withdrawal. Wolfbet, by contrast, requires identity documents (cl. 5 ¶1) without ever saying when that requirement starts.

The third question is whether a sum is actually written into the clause, rather than left open. TG.Casino prints two: €2,000 deposited triggers one step of its AML policy, and US$5,000 triggers a further one. Several operators — Bitsler and BetFury among them — require documents without printing any figure at all.

The fourth question is whether the terms set a deadline for sending those documents once they are requested. Winz.io does, at two weeks (cl. 8.4, 9.4); Metaspins does too, at thirty days (cl. 9.10). Most of the twelve set no deadline whatsoever.

The fifth question is whether the licence named in the terms or the footer actually turns up in the issuing authority's own register, matched to the casino's own domain rather than one that merely resembles it. Blockbet's Anjouan number, ALSI-202603013-FI1, matched blockbet.gg directly when the register was searched on 16 September 2026. TG.Casino's terms print no licence number at all, and a matching search for tg.casino returned no entry under that domain.

A point is awarded for each of the five questions a casino's own terms answer. Bitcasino.io and Sportsbet.io each answer four; Wolfbet answers one. The order on this site runs strictly by that point total, highest first, with nothing outside the five questions moving a casino up or down. Every field behind that total, lined up operator by operator rather than question by question, sits on a separate comparison page.

The entry rule

Scoring only begins once a separate bar is cleared first: Aviator itself had to be seen sitting in the casino's own lobby or on its own dedicated game page, checked on 16 September 2026, and the terms had to be specific enough to be scored against all five questions above. A casino that other lists name for Aviator but that failed either half of that rule — the game not confirmed live, or the terms too thin to score — sits further down the same page without a score at all, rather than being left off the page entirely. What those other lists actually agree and disagree on is a separate question from anything scored here.

The Aviator game frame in fun mode with a 30,000 USD play balance and the round history strip above it — The orange band reads FUN MODE and the balance is play money, so nothing here was deposited. Along the top runs the round history, and one entry in it is 1,095.11×. No ranking page we read prints a maximum multiplier for this game, and this strip at least puts a floor under the blank.

What counts as evidence

Every figure on this site carries three things behind it: the clause it came from, the date it was read, and the domain it was checked against. A licence number alone is not evidence that a register matches it — the register itself had to be searched, by domain, on a specific date, and the result recorded either way. Where a lookup returned nothing, that is recorded as nothing found, not assumed to mean a different result.

Two names illustrate why the domain check matters as much as the number itself. Winz.io's own terms cite a Tobique licence number, while a separate Anjouan register search lists winz.io under the same holding company with a different number entirely — two authorities, checked on the same date, that were not reconciled with each other by either document. Metaspins shows the same shape: an Anjouan number in its terms, a Curaçao register entry under a different authority for the same domain. Neither case is resolved by picking one authority over the other; both are recorded as found. Both cases are set out again, alongside the other ten operators' licence fields, on the comparison page rather than repeated in full here.

Read windows

Terms were read between 24 August and 16 September 2026; register lookups ran between 12 and 16 September 2026, searched directly by domain on each issuing authority's own site; Aviator's presence in a lobby or on a game page was confirmed on 16 September 2026 specifically, the same date used throughout this ranking. A licence entry that changes after those dates — Hyper Lucky's Anjouan expiry, already passed by the read date, is one example already on this site — is recorded as read, not re-checked automatically going forward.

Different fields were read on different dates because they come from different places: an operator's own terms sit on its own site and were opened directly; a register entry sits on a separate authority's own site and had to be searched independently, by domain, often days apart from the terms themselves. Keeping those dates separate, rather than folding everything into one single “checked” label, is what lets a case like Hyper Lucky's show up as a gap at all — the terms and the register were opened on different days entirely, and the register's own expiry field only became relevant once both were compared side by side.

What sits outside the score

Bonus size, the number of games on offer, and how quickly an operator processes a payout all sit outside the five questions entirely, and none of them moves a casino's position on this site. A wide coin list or a generous welcome offer does not raise a score, and a narrow one does not lower it. The five questions ask only what a casino's own terms commit to around identity checks, deadlines, caps and its licence register — nothing broader than that. Wagering rules attached to a bonus balance sit outside the score the same way; how those figures actually work where a casino prints one is covered on its own page rather than folded into a point total here.

A six row table marking which parts of the game a demo reproduces and which it omits — The interface, the pace and the published return all carry across. Your own money, the withdrawal queue and the limits a casino sets do not, and those are the three that cost people money.

The order this produces is not the same claim as a recommendation, and this site does not treat it as one. Wolfbet's terms name the widest coin list of the twelve and still score lowest on the five questions, because coin count was never one of them; Sportsbet.io names only five coins and scores near the top, for the same reason in reverse. A reader looking for the widest selection and a reader looking for the clearest identity clause are asking two different questions, and only one of them is what this ranking actually measures.

How we rank when the evidence is incomplete

Not every cell in the ranking carries a figure. Where a casino's terms never printed a sum, a deadline, a coin list or a withdrawal cap, that cell is left empty rather than filled with an assumption — shown on this site as a dash. An empty cell is not a mark against an operator by itself; several of the higher-scoring names on this list still carry one or two empty fields elsewhere, because the five questions and the fuller set of details shown alongside them are not quite the same measurement. Every dash on the comparison page is read the same way: a figure checked for and not found, not a figure assumed against an operator.

The two real-money tests

Two entries on this site go a step further than reading terms: the editors actually deposited and withdrew their own money. On Vave, withdrawals on 28 August 2026 went through without any identity check up to roughly 5,000 USDT in total — one account, one period, recorded as an observation rather than a rule, since Vave's own clause 8.7 still permits an identity request before any payout. On TrustDice, a longer record from May 2026 showed withdrawals clearing without verification until the running total passed about US$5,000, after which a request was placed under review, a compliance email arrived with a verification link, and a passport cleared on a fifth submitted attempt after a driving licence was turned down. Both records describe what happened in one case each, not a promise about any other account. The fuller picture of thresholds, deadlines and caps these two records sit alongside is set out on its own page.

What these figures are and are not, and which document prevails when they disagree, is on conditions of use.

The same five checks are applied by the people named on the authors page, and carried into each market version under the rules on the editors page.

Frequently asked questions

Why does a casino with a valid-looking licence sometimes score fewer points than one with a shakier one?

The licence question is only one of five, and it asks specifically whether the register matches the casino's own domain — not whether a licence exists somewhere. A casino can answer the other four questions clearly, on identity checks, deadlines and sums, and still lose the fifth point if its domain does not turn up in the register directly.

Does how we rank change if an operator updates its terms after the read date?

Every figure on this site is tied to the date it was read, printed alongside the clause it came from. A later change to an operator's own terms is not reflected automatically; the read date shown is exactly that — the date the cited version was open and scored, not a live feed of the current page.

What happens to a casino whose terms answer none of the five questions?

If Aviator itself was still confirmed live in its lobby, that casino can still appear on this site as an unscored name rather than a ranked one — shown separately, without a point total, and without any cell filled in beyond what the terms actually stated. Nothing is invented to fill a gap either way.

Why do only two of the twelve ranked casinos print a document deadline?

Because only two of their own terms — Winz.io and Metaspins — actually wrote one in, at two weeks and thirty days respectively. The other ten require identity documents without ever setting a time limit for supplying them, which this site records as an empty cell on the fourth question rather than assuming a standard period applies.

Does the point total tell a reader which casino to use?

No. It tells a reader how many of five specific questions an operator's own terms answered clearly, nothing more — bonus size, game selection and payout speed all sit outside it by design. Two casinos with the same point total can still differ in every field outside the five questions, which is why this site pairs every score with the clauses behind it rather than the number alone.