Every casino reviewed on this site is assessed using the same six-criterion framework. No exceptions, no shortcuts, no adjustments for “promising new sites” that haven’t yet established a track record. Here’s exactly how each criterion works and what we’re looking for.
Licensing and Security (Weighted: 20%)
The first and most fundamental question we ask about any non-Gamstop casino is whether it holds a verifiable licence from a recognised regulatory authority. We cross-reference every licence number against the issuing regulator’s public registry. A licence that doesn’t appear in the registry gets no credit, regardless of what the casino claims on its website.
We assess licences on a tiered basis. Malta Gaming Authority and Gibraltar Regulatory Authority licences score highest, reflecting the stricter operational requirements imposed by those bodies. Curaçao eGaming licences are accepted but scored with appropriate weight — sufficient to establish basic legitimacy, but not the regulatory benchmark of MGA or GRA oversight.
We also assess SSL encryption status, data protection practices (GDPR alignment for EU/UK player data), the presence of published RNG certification from an independent testing laboratory, and the clarity of ownership and corporate registration information. Casinos that obscure their corporate structure or licence details are scored down regardless of other positive factors.
Payment Options and Withdrawal Reliability (Weighted: 20%)
Payment assessment goes beyond listing accepted methods. We test deposits and withdrawals directly — real money, real accounts, timed from request to receipt. We document the actual processing times experienced during testing and compare them to stated processing times. Discrepancies are noted and factored into scores.
We assess: the range of accepted deposit methods, withdrawal processing times for each method, the presence and level of withdrawal fees, withdrawal limits (daily, weekly, monthly), KYC documentation requirements and processing speed, and — critically — whether pending withdrawals can be reversed by the player. The last point matters because reversible withdrawals create a casino-favourable mechanism that can undermine financial discipline for at-risk players.
Game Selection (Weighted: 15%)
Game library quality is assessed on volume, provider diversity, and functional organisation. A library of 5,000 games sourced from two providers is less valuable than 2,500 games drawn from 30 studios offering genuine variety in volatility, mechanics, and style. We assess: total game count, number of distinct software providers, live casino depth and provider quality, table game variant range, and the quality of search and filter tools within the game lobby.
We also note the presence of provably fair game options (relevant for crypto-focused players), jackpot slots and their current prize values, and the representation of newer, independent studios alongside established names.
Bonuses and Promotions (Weighted: 15%)
Bonus assessment focuses on genuine player value rather than headline figures. A 500% welcome bonus with 80x wagering is categorically less valuable than a 100% bonus with 25x wagering. We calculate the effective cash value of each welcome offer based on average slot RTP, stated wagering requirements, and applicable game restrictions.
We read the full bonus terms — every clause — and flag: wagering requirements (on deposit, bonus, or both), game contribution rates (particularly for live casino and table games), time limits for wagering completion, maximum bet limits during active wagering, and maximum cashout caps on bonus winnings. We also assess ongoing promotional depth, VIP programme structure and transparency, and the presence of no-wagering offers (cashback schemes paid as real cash).
Customer Support (Weighted: 15%)
We test every support channel available on each casino — live chat, email, and phone where offered. Tests are conducted at varying times of day to assess consistency rather than best-case performance. We present agents with both straightforward and complex queries: basic account questions, detailed bonus term questions, payment timeline queries, and responsible gambling tool questions.
We score: response time, accuracy of information provided, willingness to engage with complex or unflattering questions, knowledge breadth across both casino and payment functions, and availability hours. Casinos where support agents can’t accurately explain their own bonus terms, or who deflect to boilerplate “please see our FAQ” responses, score significantly lower than those with genuinely informed, responsive teams.
Responsible Gambling Tools (Weighted: 15%)
This criterion assesses what a Gamstop excluded casino provides in terms of player protection tools, given that Gamstop compliance is not required. We assess: the availability of deposit limits (daily, weekly, monthly), loss limits, wager limits, session time limits, reality check notifications, cool-off periods, and self-exclusion options. We test whether these tools can be activated easily within the account settings and whether they take effect immediately upon activation.
We also assess: the prominence and quality of links to external support organisations, the presence of a dedicated responsible gambling page with meaningful content (not just a list of links), and whether the platform’s general tone — in marketing, promotions, and game presentation — avoids language that normalises excessive or problem gambling behaviour.
Overall User Experience (Weighted: 10%)
UX is assessed across desktop and mobile (both responsive site and dedicated app where available). We evaluate: registration process length and simplicity, navigation logic, game lobby organisation, banking section clarity and efficiency, game loading speeds, and mobile performance on both iOS and Android. We also note any friction points that could disadvantage players — hidden menus, unclear terms placement, or promotional messaging that obscures withdrawal conditions.
How We Present Scores
Each casino receives a score out of 10 across all six criteria, weighted as described above. The aggregate weighted score determines the overall rating presented in our reviews. We publish individual criterion scores alongside the overall rating so readers can weight the criteria differently according to their own priorities — a player primarily interested in game selection may weigh our game assessment more heavily than our bonus assessment, and our transparent scoring allows for that.
Scores are reviewed at six-month intervals or whenever a significant operational change at the casino warrants reassessment. We mark all updated reviews with the date of last assessment. If you notice an operational change at a reviewed casino that we haven’t yet reflected, please contact us via our editorial correspondence address at gamstopexcludedcasinos.org.uk.