Compare Casinos review methodology: the 10 parameter scoring system explained
Every casino on this site is scored 1-10 across 10 parameters. In comparisons, the casino with the higher score wins that parameter (1 round). Ties give half a point each. The casino with more total round wins takes the matchup.
For best-of pages (e.g., Most Rewarding Crypto Casinos), category-specific weights amplify the parameters that matter most for that use case. A high-roller ranking gives 2x weight to VIP and 1.5x to bonus and withdrawals; a crypto ranking gives 2x to payments.
The casino scoring rubric in detail: 10 parameters every operator is graded against the same way
| # | Parameter | What's evaluated |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | License & Regulation | Jurisdiction, regulator strength, local licenses (UK/DE/RO get bonus credit), track record without major sanctions |
| 2 | Welcome Bonus | Real value: size minus wager, transparency of T&Cs, max-cashout caps. Rakeback-only platforms scored on rakeback strength instead. |
| 3 | KYC / Verification | How much friction stands between you and your first bet. No-KYC scores high; "passport plus selfie plus utility bill" scores low. |
| 4 | Payment Methods | Crypto coverage, fiat support, min deposit, Lightning Network availability, processing fees |
| 5 | Withdrawal Speed & Limits | Average time to wallet, daily/monthly caps, fees on cashout |
| 6 | Customer Support | Channels (chat/email/phone), response time, language support, quality of replies |
| 7 | Mobile Experience | Responsive site quality, PWA or native app, performance on slow connections |
| 8 | VIP & Loyalty Program | Tier structure, rakeback %, personal manager availability, real perks vs cosmetic |
| 9 | Unique Features | What this casino did first or does best: 100% RTP originals, Rain, token economics, NFT-VIP, Slot Battles, on-chain bet verification |
| 10 | Reputation & Trust | Age, review consensus on independent sites, scandals, payout history, regulator complaints |
Casino category weights: how use-case rankings reorder the same scorecards
| Category | Weight 2.0 | Weight 1.5 | Others |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crypto Casinos | payments | withdrawals, unique | 1.0 |
| High Roller Casinos | vip | bonus, withdrawals | 1.0 |
| Anonymous Casinos | kyc | payments, unique | 1.0 |
| Casino Bonuses | bonus | vip, unique | 1.0 |
| Live Casinos | unique | support, mobile | 1.0 |
How head-to-head matchup verdicts get scored on the rubric
Each matchup page puts the two casinos through all 10 parameters. The casino that wins a parameter wins that round. After 10 rounds the score reads something like 7-3 or 6-4, and the casino with more rounds wins the matchup. That single verdict feeds the leaderboard on the homepage. One matchup per pair, one winner per matchup.
This is why the leaderboard updates whenever a new comparison is published: it's not editorially picked, it's calculated. If Roobet wins enough head-to-heads against Stake equivalents, Roobet rises. There's no "we updated the rankings this month" because the rankings always reflect the current matchup record.
What this scoring framework refuses to do, no matter who is asking
- Rotate top-list rankings based on monthly affiliate deals
- Hide losses from sponsoring casinos
- Fabricate welcome bonuses where they don't exist (Stake has no welcome - I write that, not "exclusive Stake bonus claim now!")
- Use AI-marker phrases ("In conclusion", "Let's dive into", em-dash)
- Score on vibes: every parameter is anchored to specific evidence in the casino review