Our rating methodology

We rate every casino we cover. Unlike comparison sites that only score the operators they happen to have a commercial deal with, every UK-facing operator we feature on Compare Casino Sites runs through the same scoring system on the same criteria, whether or not we have an affiliate arrangement with them. Ratings are recalculated on a rolling basis to reflect the latest licensing and regulatory data.

Written by: Becky Mosley, Editor-in-Chief
Last updated: 14 May 2026

Disclosure: Compare Casino Sites earns commissions from some of the brands listed. The commission rate an operator pays us is not a factor in the score it receives. Read our full Affiliate Disclosure.

Rating scale

• 4.5 – 5.0 – Excellent. Outstanding across all criteria. Highly trusted operators with strong regulatory records.
• 4.0 – 4.4 – Very Good. Well above average with only minor areas for improvement.
• 3.5 – 3.9 – Good. Solid overall. Meets expectations in most categories.
• 3.0 – 3.4 – Fair. Acceptable but with notable weaknesses in one or more areas.
• 2.5 – 2.9 – Average. Meets minimum standards but lacks distinction.
• Below 2.5 – Below Average. Significant concerns identified. Approach with caution.

Rating categories

1. Regulatory standing – 35% of the overall score

This is the most heavily weighted category because licensing and regulation directly affect whether your funds are protected and whether disputes can be resolved fairly. We evaluate:

• Licence quality. Casinos holding licences from trusted jurisdictions – the UK Gambling Commission, the Malta Gaming Authority, the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner and the Swedish Spelinspektionen – score highest. Casinos licensed only in weaker jurisdictions (such as Curaçao or Anjouan) receive deductions.
• Regulatory history. We check the public records for licence suspensions, financial penalties and compliance sanctions. Recent and severe actions result in significant deductions.
• Advertising compliance. Upheld ASA rulings against the operator in the last five years result in deductions.
• Multiple licences. Operators holding licences from more than one reputable regulator receive a small bonus, since this demonstrates a commitment to meeting high standards in more than one jurisdiction.
• Clean record bonus. Operators with no regulatory actions and no upheld advertising rulings receive additional credit.

2. Operator trust – 30% of the overall score

This category looks at the credibility and track record of the company behind the brand. We evaluate:

• Operating history. Casinos that have been operating for ten or more years score highest. Newly launched sites (under one year) receive a deduction because they lack a proven track record.
• Operator portfolio. Operators running an excessive number of near-identical white-label sites receive deductions, since that pattern can indicate weaker quality control. Focused operators with smaller portfolios receive a bonus.
• Platform independence. Casinos running on proprietary technology score higher than those operating as a thin skin on a third-party white-label platform.
• Company registration. UK and Gibraltar-registered companies receive a bonus, reflecting the additional accountability that comes with those regimes. Offshore registrations receive a small deduction.

3. Game diversity – 20% of the overall score

A broad selection of game providers indicates a better player experience and a more established operation. We evaluate:

• Number of software providers. Casinos offering games from thirty or more studios score highest in this category. Those with fewer than two providers score lowest.

4. Payments and currency – 15% of the overall score

Flexible payment options and multi-currency support improve accessibility and convenience for players. We evaluate:

• Payment methods. Casinos accepting twenty or more deposit and withdrawal methods score highest. Those with fewer than five receive minimal credit.
• Currency support. Supporting ten or more currencies earns the highest score in this sub-category.

How scores are combined

Each category produces a sub-score from 0 to 5. The overall rating is a weighted average of the four sub-scores:

Overall = (Regulatory × 35%) + (Trust × 30%) + (Games × 20%) + (Payments × 15%)

The result is rounded to one decimal place and shown next to the casino’s name throughout the Site.

Data sources

Our ratings draw exclusively on publicly available, independently verifiable data:

• UK Gambling Commission – the public register of licensed operators and regulatory decisions.
• Malta Gaming Authority – licence-holder records and published compliance actions.
• Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) – the adjudication rulings database.
• Operator websites – game-provider listings, accepted payment methods and company-registration details.

Independence

Ratings on Compare Casino Sites are algorithmically generated from verifiable data. They are not influenced by commercial relationships, advertising arrangements or affiliate partnerships. A casino cannot pay for a higher rating, and we do not offer paid placement that would alter a casino’s underlying score.

Ratings may be manually overridden in exceptional circumstances – for example, where publicly known information is not yet reflected in our data sources, or where our editorial team identifies a serious issue (such as a refused-withdrawal pattern reported in customer complaints) that the data feeds do not yet capture. Any manual adjustment is logged internally, signed off by the Editor-in-Chief and subject to periodic review.

How we comply with the UK CAP Code, ASA guidance on affiliate marketing and the EU Omnibus Directive (EU) 2019/2161 is set out in full in our Affiliate Disclosure.

FAQ’s