This page is the long-form companion to our Editorial Policy. The policy states what we rate, in what weights, and who fact-checks the work. This page tells you how each criterion is scored, what counts for a high or low mark, and what evidence the score is anchored to.
Read this page if you want to understand why a BetVouch rating reads the way it does — particularly if you disagree with one and want to argue with us. We respond to specific evidence-based objections; we don't change scores on the basis of operator complaints alone.
Last updated: 20 May 2026. Reviewer: Marijan Karajanov.
A casino's BetVouch star rating is the weighted average of six sub-scores, each on a 1–10 scale. The weights are fixed across every operator we review:
| Criterion | Weight | Anchor |
|---|---|---|
| Licensing & regulatory record | 25% | Public regulator registers |
| Payout speed and friction | 20% | Our own withdrawal tests |
| Bonus fairness | 15% | Wagering math on the live terms |
| Customer support | 15% | Tickets we open during testing |
| Complaint history | 15% | Public complaints + BetVouch mediation log |
| Game library and provider integrity | 10% | Provider register + RNG audit certificates |
The weighted average is rounded to the nearest 0.1 star (out of 5). A score of 0 on any criterion is possible — for example, an unlicensed operator scores 0 on Licensing — and a 0 in any one criterion caps the overall rating at 3.0 stars regardless of the other five. This is deliberate: a casino that fails outright on one fundamental cannot earn a four- or five-star rating from us, no matter how strong the rest of its operation is.
Licensing is the heaviest weight because it is the single best predictor of whether a player can get their money back if something goes wrong. A casino licensed in Curaçao with no real-world enforcement mechanism scores very differently from a casino licensed by the Dutch KSA or UK Gambling Commission, where regulators can fine operators, suspend licences, and order specific player payments.
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Active licence with a Tier-1 regulator (KSA, UKGC, MGA, DGOJ, ARJEL/ANJ, Swedish Spelinspektionen, Danish Spillemyndigheden). No enforcement actions on file. Integrated with the relevant self-exclusion register (Cruks/Gamstop/Stop-Gambling). |
| 7–8 | Tier-1 licence with one minor enforcement action resolved, or a Tier-2 regulator (Isle of Man GSC, AGCC, Gibraltar). Self-exclusion integration confirmed. |
| 5–6 | Lower-tier licence (Curaçao GCB, Anjouan, Kahnawake) with clear ownership disclosure and no enforcement actions. Or Tier-1 licence with a serious recent enforcement action. |
| 3–4 | Lower-tier licence with opaque ownership or unresolved player complaints. Tier-1 licence with an active suspension. |
| 1–2 | Unlicensed or licence revoked. Operating in a market where it is not authorised to do so. |
| 0 | No verifiable licence at all, or actively prohibited by a Tier-1 regulator in the operator's primary market. |
Regulator pages we use as anchors: KSA vergunninghouders register (NL), UKGC Public Register, MGA Licensee Register (Malta), DGOJ General Register (Spain).
The single most common complaint we receive against casinos is "they will not pay me." Payout speed and friction are scored against the operator's own published commitment, not a fixed industry benchmark. If a casino promises 24-hour withdrawals and consistently takes 7 days, the score reflects the gap. If it promises 7 days and reliably delivers in 6, the score is good.
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Withdrawals consistently under 24 hours, KYC at signup so no surprise at cash-out, no per-day caps below €10 000, zero fees, no reversals in our tests. |
| 7–8 | Withdrawals 1–3 business days as advertised, KYC handled quickly (under 24 hours) when triggered, reasonable per-month caps (€25 000+). |
| 5–6 | Withdrawals 3–7 days as advertised. KYC takes 1–3 business days. Per-month caps in the €5 000–25 000 range. Minor fees on some methods. |
| 3–4 | Withdrawals take 7–14 days, or the operator's published commitment is missed by more than 50%. KYC delays of multiple days. Strict per-day caps that force balance instalments. |
| 1–2 | Withdrawals take more than two weeks. Multiple reversal attempts during testing. KYC blocks withdrawal for over a week without a substantive reason. |
| 0 | Withdrawal denied without a regulator-recognised reason during our tests, or operator demonstrably refuses to pay verified players. |
If you have a specific payout problem with a casino we've reviewed, our free complaint-mediation service can open the case with the operator on your behalf.
Most casino bonuses look great on the landing page and degrade once you read the terms. We compute the realistic value of an advertised bonus before it lands in a review: what the player actually gets after wagering, contribution restrictions, max-bet caps during wagering, and expiry windows.
We score on a "realistic recoverable percentage of nominal bonus" basis. Example: a €100 deposit + €100 bonus with 35× wagering on bonus-only, 100% slot contribution, no max-bet cap, and 30-day expiry is approximately 28% realistically recoverable for an average player — that's roughly a 7/10 on this criterion. A €100 + €500 bonus with 50× wagering on deposit-plus-bonus, max €5 bet, 10-day expiry, and €1 000 maximum cash-out is approximately 4% realistically recoverable — that's a 1/10, no matter how attractive the headline number looks.
We publish the full computation in every review's bonus section so the reader can argue with the assumptions if they disagree.
Related reading: Wagering requirements explained — the formula to compute the realistic recoverable value of a bonus before you take it.
Support quality matters most when something has gone wrong. We open at least one ticket per channel offered by the operator during each review, with one structured question (e.g., "What documents do I need for verification at withdrawal?") and one open-ended question that requires reading the prior context.
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Live chat under 2 minutes to a human, accurate context-aware answers, email response under 4 hours, full language coverage for licensed markets, 24/7. |
| 7–8 | Live chat under 10 minutes to a human, mostly accurate answers, email under 12 hours, primary local language plus English. |
| 5–6 | Live chat reaches a human within 30 minutes, generic but correct answers, email within 24 hours, English only for non-English markets. |
| 3–4 | Bot-only support during business hours, escalation slow, email responses miss key questions in 1 of 3 cases. |
| 1–2 | No working support channel during our tests, or agents demonstrably uninformed about the operator's own terms. |
| 0 | No support channels reachable across multiple attempts during our test window. |
A casino's track record of resolving (or refusing to resolve) player complaints is the closest thing we have to a leading indicator of how the operator will treat you when something goes wrong. We weight three signals: complaints filed through BetVouch's own mediation service, complaints recorded by recognised dispute-resolution bodies (IBAS, eCOGRA, ADR Group, KSA's klachten register), and unresolved complaints visible on public forums older than 90 days.
A casino with a low complaint rate that resolves substantive cases within 14 days scores high. A casino with high complaint volume and a clear pattern of refusing to engage scores low. Volume alone is not enough to lower the score — large operators receive more complaints in absolute terms — but pattern-of-refusal is heavily penalised.
If you have a current unresolved dispute with an operator, file it through our free complaint-mediation service. The case feeds into our public record of that operator's behaviour.
This is the lightest weight because, for a player choosing where to play, the games are usually the easiest aspect to verify themselves: the lobby is right there. We score it to reward operators that work with audited providers and penalise those mixing in unregulated white-label content.
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Wide catalogue from at least 20 audited providers, RTP visible per game, full live-dealer coverage from a Tier-1 studio. |
| 7–8 | Solid catalogue from 10+ audited providers, RTP visible per provider, working live dealer. |
| 5–6 | Adequate catalogue mostly from a few main providers, some live dealer. |
| 3–4 | Limited catalogue with reliance on white-label or unaudited content. |
| 1–2 | Predominantly white-label or unaudited content; major providers absent. |
| 0 | Demonstrably rigged or unaudited content surfaced as flagship games. |
Every casino on BetVouch is re-checked at least once per calendar quarter. The "last verified" date on every review reflects when the testing was performed, not when the page was edited. Off-cycle re-reviews are triggered by:
If you believe a BetVouch score is wrong, contact editorial@betvouch.com with the specific criterion and the evidence you want us to weigh. We acknowledge within two business days and resolve within ten. We do not change scores on the basis of operator pressure or paid subscription status; we change them on the basis of evidence. Significant corrections are flagged at the top of the affected review for thirty days and logged in our public corrections register.