Our online casino comparison methodology uses a proposed 100-point framework, consistent market conditions and published evidence requirements. It compares licensing, payments, player protections, games, support and bonus clarity. Missing evidence prevents a complete score; a high total cannot cancel a serious eligibility or licensing concern.
Methodology effective date: September 11, 2026. These standards govern future operator reviews; this page does not report completed casino testing or publish operator rankings.
Which online casinos can be compared together?
Online casinos can be compared only when the page defines a meaningful common context. Country eligibility, account currency, payment route and the date checked can change what a player actually receives. A worldwide league table would conceal those differences.
- State the reader’s jurisdiction and the review’s eligibility assumptions.
- Use the same currency and account type for cost examples.
- Separate standard conditions from temporary promotional conditions.
- Distinguish advertised performance from observed test results.
A casino excluded from one jurisdiction must not appear as an available option there because it accepts customers elsewhere. Our review evidence process defines how those underlying facts should be collected.
How will the 100-point casino comparison score work?
The proposed score allocates 100 possible points across six areas. These are All In Casino Guide’s editorial weights, not regulator ratings or measured probabilities of safety. The framework puts licensing, payments and player protections ahead of promotional appeal.
| Assessment area | Maximum points | Main concern |
|---|---|---|
| Identity and licensing transparency | 25 | Who operates the site and under which authority? |
| Payments and withdrawal clarity | 25 | Can costs, restrictions and verification be understood? |
| Player protections | 20 | Are limits, exclusion and complaint routes explained? |
| Games and information quality | 15 | Are game rules and relevant technical details accessible? |
| Support and usability | 10 | Can readers obtain usable information and assistance? |
| Bonus transparency | 5 | Are material conditions understandable before opting in? |
Detailed review criteria define the evidence examined within these areas. Offering no promotion is not itself a defect; this category evaluates disclosure and optional participation rather than rewarding bonus size.
How will category ratings become points?
Each assessed area will receive a rating from 0 to 5 with a written reason. Zero means an evidenced serious deficiency; 3 means the disclosed requirements are adequately met; 5 requires clear evidence of strong performance against the published criteria. Intermediate ratings represent documented differences, not arbitrary precision.
Category points equal the rating divided by 5, multiplied by its maximum weight. For illustration, a payments rating of 4 out of 5 earns 20 of the 25 available payments points. This is arithmetic demonstrating the framework, not a result for a real operator.
- Publish each category rating and the evidence behind it.
- Show the total to one decimal place at most.
- Explain a meaningful disadvantage alongside any total.
- Keep the same rating scale across the comparison set.
What happens when evidence is missing?
Missing evidence will be marked unverified rather than converted into a zero or an assumed average. A zero is a negative finding; unverified means the finding has not been established. The two carry different meanings.
A complete total will be withheld if a required area cannot be assessed. We will not redistribute its weight across the remaining categories, because that could reward an operator for providing less information. A factual side-by-side table may still be useful when it states exactly which cells remain unverified.
Can a high score override a licensing concern?
A high score cannot override a material licensing mismatch, unresolved operator identity or exclusion from the comparison’s stated market. Those are eligibility questions before arithmetic begins. Attractive games and support cannot compensate for failing the entry conditions.
For a Great Britain comparison, the Gambling Commission business register is a relevant source for checking licence status. Other jurisdictions require their own appropriate checks. No numerical score establishes worldwide legal availability.
How will ties and methodology changes be handled?
A tie will remain a tie unless a disclosed reader need supports a different order. We will not manufacture decimal differences to create a winner. A payments-focused comparison can explain a preference without changing the underlying score.
Material changes to weights will receive a dated methodology update. Comparisons using different versions must be identified and reassessed before their totals are treated as equivalent. Our editorial policy governs commercial disclosure, and our online casino hub provides context beyond a score. Readers can use the safety guidance without relying on rankings.