How we rate

We checked the five biggest sites in this market before writing this (21–22.07.2026, 122 pages measured). Two of them publish axis weights. None publishes the rule inside an axis, which means no reader can reproduce a single score they show. That is the gap this page exists to close.

0. The licence gate — before any points are counted

A casino is scored only if we can find it ourselves in a regulator's public register: the domain, an active licence, the licence number, and the date we looked. We publish that check on the review page, and anyone can repeat it with our licence check tool.

• Found, licence active — the operator is scored and can appear in toplists.
• Found, licence lapsed or surrendered — the review stays up with the lapse stated at the top; the operator leaves every toplist.
• Not found — marked Unrated: no verifiable licence. No score, no toplist, no affiliate link. A licence claimed on the operator's own site is not evidence.

We currently mirror the UK Gambling Commission register in full. Malta and Curaçao are checked by hand until their registers are imported — reviews say which register was used and when.

The 100 points

Six axes. The number beside each axis is its share of the 100; the numbers inside it are the points each criterion can contribute, and the rule that awards them.

The score out of ten is the points a casino earned divided by the points we could assess, times ten: 44 earned of 51 assessed is 8.6. It is rounded to one decimal place and nothing else, and there is no editor's discretionary adjustment on top.

What the number means

The evidence rule

A criterion we have not measured is not scored at all — and it is not silently counted as a pass either. It is removed from the total the score is calculated out of, and the review prints how many points that leaves. A casino assessed on 44 of the 100 points carries its score with “44 of 100 assessed” printed under it.

We changed this rule deliberately. Scoring an unmeasured criterion as zero produces a number that reads like a verdict on the casino when it is really a statement about us: a household name we have never deposited at would land near 3/10 and look condemned, which is a lie of a different kind than the one we are trying to avoid. Scoring it as an average, or filling it with the operator's own claim, would be worse still.

What this costs, said plainly: until we have deposited our own money at a casino, the payout, mobile and support axes stay unassessed for it, and the part we can assess is weighted towards licence facts and bonus terms. That means the order of our toplists today is decided largely by the terms of the welcome offer and the strength of the licence record — not by how quickly a casino actually pays. Two casinos with an identical assessed score can be very different places to play, and the smaller the assessed share, the less the score is worth. Every score on this site carries that share next to it so you can weigh it yourself.

What changed in version 1.3, on 20 October 2026. The wagering criterion was rewritten for the Gambling Commission's 10× cap. The old scale gave full marks to anything at 20× or lower, so once every British offer had to sit at 10× or below, it gave nearly every offer we had read the same 8 points and stopped telling them apart. The new scale follows what a requirement costs you — about 4% of the bonus for each 1× at a 96% slot — so no wagering earns 8 points, the 10× maximum earns 4 and anything above it earns nothing. Seven offers lost points on the criterion: five at 10× lost four, one at 1× lost one, and one quoted at 35× lost five. No score rose, and the weight of the criterion did not change.

What changed in version 1.2, on 9 September 2026. We moved 12 points into the licence record — four each out of mobile, support and payouts. Nine of them came from what we cannot yet measure without a funded account: the handset tests, the timed chats and the timed withdrawal. The other three are one point each from verification, method coverage and support channels, which shrank with their axes. In the licence record we added three criteria: how long the licensee has held a licence, whether any licence on its record was revoked or allowed to lapse, and what the register says it is permitted to offer. All three are checkable for every brand on this site, on the day we publish, from the register we mirror ourselves. Under the old weights the licence record, which we can check for a casino we have not deposited at, was a fifth of the method; it is now a third, and it rests on facts rather than on absence. No criterion was made easier to pass, and no score here rose because a rule was relaxed.

Corrected on 19 October 2026. When the weights changed, the rule texts on this page were not rewritten with them: nine still described the old point scales, and eight named conditions the scoring never checked — terms in the currency and language of the offer, published table limits, a 30-day expiry and the like. The rules above now say exactly what the scoring does. No score moved, because every score since 9 September 2026 had already been calculated on the new weights and by the code these rules describe. One rule had been applied wrongly, and that was fixed the same day: the fees-and-limits deduction read a £1,000-a-day withdrawal limit as if it were £1,000 a month. It now converts a limit to a month before the £5,000 test, which gave one casino back two points.

Below 40 assessed points we publish no score out of ten. A number built on a fifth of the method is not a weak verdict, it is a measurement of our own coverage wearing a verdict's clothes — and out of ten it would read as a condemnation of casinos we have barely looked at. What those pages carry instead is the result of the checks we could actually run — passed 22 of the 22 points we could check, and how much of the hundred that represents — alongside the criteria we assessed, the licence record and the facts we read. It is a statement about coverage, not a rating dressed down.

Each review therefore carries, for every criterion: either the points, the rule that produced them and the date of the check — or the words Not assessed and the reason. Scores are recalculated every night, after the regulator's register and enforcement record are re-read, so a change of licence status reaches the score by the next morning. The operator pages the other criteria come from are re-read on a 90-day target, and a review whose copy is older than that says so at the top.

The test protocol — what we do to a casino

Below is the whole list, version 1.0 (2 August 2026). Every review prints these 9 lines in this order and fills each one with a date, a result and the artefact it produced — or with Not tested yet. There is no third state, and a line we have not done is never left blank.

We checked what the market shows instead: across 14 competitor reviews measured on 21–22.07.2026 there were no deposit amounts, no timed withdrawals and no artefacts of any kind. All five sites say their experts tested the casino; none says what was done, on what day, or with whose money.

The money for deposits is ours. We do not accept a funded test account from an operator, because a balance we did not pay for cannot test whether a withdrawal of real money arrives.

Money, and what does not move a score

No operator pays us today: there are no affiliate links on the site, as the strip at the top of every page says and the affiliate disclosure explains. If commission arrangements come later, this is what they will not buy:

• A place in a toplist. Order is by score, and where scores tie, by the payout window the casino publishes.
• A point on any axis. Commission is not an input to the rubric above.
• Removal of a bad review, or of a section an operator dislikes.
• Priority for operators with a deal over ones without — both would be rated the same way, appear in the same tables and be linked the same way.

If you think a score is wrong

Operators and readers can both challenge a score. Send the axis, the criterion and the evidence to contact@verified-casino.com. If the evidence stands, we change the score, note the change on the review with its date, and say what was wrong. We do not remove a score because it is unflattering.