How We Rate and Research iGaming Platforms

Every score, benchmark and in-depth review in this directory is produced with the same published framework. This page documents what we measure, where the data comes from, how derived figures are calculated, and what our ratings deliberately do not tell you.

Methodology revised 9 October 2026 · directory data last updated 3 November 2026

Contents

1. What we score
2. Where the data comes from
3. How often we update
4. Benchmarks and derived figures on platform pages
5. How "alternatives" and "best for" are chosen
6. In-depth reviews
7. How listings are ordered
8. How we make money, and what that does not buy
9. What our ratings do not cover
10. Corrections and right of reply

1. What we score

Each platform receives an overall rating on a 1–10 scale, built from four component scores. Component scores are stored separately and shown on every platform page next to the directory average, so you can see how the overall figure was reached and how it compares with the rest of the catalogue.

Component	Weight	What it measures
Technology	35%	Architecture and API maturity, back-office depth, uptime commitment, mobile delivery, integration count, and how much of the stack is owned versus resold.
Support	25%	Stated response times, account-management model, onboarding assistance, documentation quality, and language coverage.
Pricing	25%	Setup cost, monthly fee, revenue-share band, and how transparently those terms are disclosed before a contract. A vendor that publishes no terms cannot score at the top of this component.
Market track record	15%	Years in operation, number of live operator clients, licensing footprint, and jurisdictions where the platform is demonstrably in production.

Scores are editorial judgements against this rubric, not averages of user reviews. Two platforms with the same overall score can be very different products; read the component scores and the profile text, not just the headline number.

2. Where the data comes from

We use the following source types, in descending order of weight:

1. Public regulatory registers. Licence status is checked against the register of the issuing authority (MGA, UKGC, GGL, KSA, DGOJ, ONJN, AGCO, Curaçao Gaming Authority and others), not against the provider's own marketing claims. Where a register is public we cite the licence number so you can repeat the check.
2. Primary provider disclosure. Specification sheets, published pricing and promotions, API documentation, compliance pages, press releases, and answers given to us directly by the provider.
3. Corporate registries and filings. Companies House, Malta Business Registry and equivalent registers for legal entity, ownership and filing history where the provider or its parent is a filing entity.
4. Trade press and industry bodies. Dated reporting from established iGaming trade publications, award bodies and conference programmes, used for product launches, acquisitions, leadership changes and client wins.
5. Operator feedback. Structured input from operators who have run the platform in production, used to sanity-check vendor claims about support and uptime.

We do not use anonymous review-site scores as evidence of quality. Where such scores are mentioned in an in-depth review, the sample size is stated so you can weigh them yourself.

3. How often we update

Each provider profile carries its own "verified" date at the top of the page, and each in-depth review carries its own "researched" date. Our target cycle is:

• Licence status: re-checked quarterly, and immediately on any public enforcement action.
• Commercial terms (setup cost, revenue share, launch time): reviewed twice a year.
• Feature and integration data: updated whenever the provider notifies us of a change, and reviewed annually.
• In-depth reviews: refreshed when a material event occurs (acquisition, new licence, leadership change, regulatory action) and reviewed at least annually.

If a profile's verification date is more than twelve months old, treat the commercial figures as indicative and confirm them with the provider.

4. Benchmarks and derived figures on platform pages

Several figures on platform pages and guides are not stored in a profile but calculated from the catalogue at the moment the page is served. They change automatically whenever a profile is updated.

• Directory medians (setup cost, revenue share, launch time) are the median of the published figures only. Platforms that do not disclose a value are excluded from that statistic, and the number of platforms included is shown next to it. Today the median published setup cost is €35,000 across 19 of 63 platforms.
• "Above / below / in line with the median" uses a 15% tolerance band: a value within 15% of the median is reported as in line with it.
• Market-position charts plot every platform's published low-end figure as a dot and the platform under review as a highlighted range. Setup cost uses a logarithmic axis because published fees span two orders of magnitude. The percentage "of platforms that start lower" counts strictly lower values among those that publish one.
• Year-one cost estimate is arithmetic, not a quote: setup fee + 12 × (monthly gross gaming revenue × revenue share) + 12 × fixed monthly fee, computed at the low and high end of the published bands. It excludes licensing, payments, game content royalties and marketing. The "median platform" line applies the directory medians to the same monthly revenue.
• Ratings versus the directory shows the arithmetic mean of each component score across all active platforms as a marker on the bar.
• Generated FAQ answers on platform pages are assembled from the profile's stored fields (pricing, model, launch time, licences, markets) and the benchmarks above. They contain no information that is not visible elsewhere on the page.

5. How "alternatives" and "best for" are chosen

The alternatives shown on a platform page are selected by a fixed rule, not by commercial relationship. Each other platform is scored for similarity and the four highest-scoring platforms are listed:

Criterion	Points
Same deployment model (white label / turnkey); one of the two offers both	3 / 2
Same tier	2
Both support crypto payments	1
Both offer a sportsbook	1
Published entry setup fee within 25% / within 50% of each other	2 / 1

Ties are broken by overall rating. Featured status plays no part in the selection. The "best for" bullets are derived from the same stored attributes (deployment model, launch time, entry price, crypto, sportsbook, API availability, tier and target market) using fixed wording; they are not written per vendor.

6. In-depth reviews

12 platform pages currently carry an in-depth review: a researched section covering products and modules, pricing and commercial model, licences and markets, technology and integration, clients and track record, recent developments, how the vendor compares, and questions to ask before signing. We prioritise the vendors operators search for most.

• Every claim is sourced. Each review ends with a numbered source list (vendor pages, regulator registers, corporate filings, dated trade press). A fact we could not verify is stated as "not publicly disclosed" rather than estimated.
• Prices only when published. We quote prices or promotional terms only if the vendor or reputable press published them, with the date. Otherwise we describe the commercial model qualitatively.
• Adverse information is attributed. Regulatory actions, investigative reporting or ownership questions are reported with their source and with the company's response where one exists. We do not repeat unverified allegations.
• "Our verdict" is a two-sentence editorial summary of who the vendor suits and who should look elsewhere. It is an opinion based on the facts in the review, and it is not influenced by commercial relationships.
• Research tooling. We use software to collect, cross-check and date public sources at scale. Published text is reviewed by our editorial team before it goes live, and the research date is shown on the page.

7. How listings are ordered

Default ordering is by overall rating. Two things can change a provider's position on the page, and both are labelled where they occur:

• Filters and sorting you apply: these change order only, never scores.
• "Featured" placement: a commercial placement. Featured entries carry a visible Featured badge. Featured status affects position in some lists; it never changes a rating, never affects the alternatives shown on other platforms' pages, and never removes a competitor from the directory.

Category pages (white label, turnkey, sportsbook, crypto) list every platform whose stored attributes match the category, ordered by rating with featured entries first inside the same rating band.

8. How we make money, and what that does not buy

This directory is free to use and is funded by providers who pay for featured placement and for enhanced profiles, and by referral fees when an operator we introduce signs with a provider. That is a genuine commercial interest and you should read our content with it in mind.

What payment does not buy:

• A higher rating, or removal of a low component score.
• Deletion or suppression of a competitor's listing.
• Removal of documented weaknesses or sourced adverse information from a profile or review.
• A place in another platform's alternatives list.
• Editorial control over this methodology page.

9. What our ratings do not cover

10. Corrections and right of reply

If you are a provider and believe a data point about you is wrong, write to [email protected] with the correction and a source. We verify and, where the correction is supported, update the profile or review and its date. We do not remove accurate, sourced negative information, but we will publish a provider's response alongside it.

Operators and readers can report an inaccuracy the same way: see our contact page.