How We Rate Online Casinos
We publish two different scores. The composite out of 100 aggregates eligible rating inputs. Our editorial rating out of 5 is a separate judgement that also considers enforcement, banking, bonus terms and the product itself.
Each eligible rating input is normalized to 100, weighted by its category and adjusted for review volume. Crowd inputs with fewer than 10 reviews are excluded.
AGCO actions retain the legal subject, current status and brand relationship as separate fields. Direct and operator-level actions can affect the editorial rating, never composite formula v2.
Withdrawal windows, fees, Interac support and KYC affect the editorial rating out of 5, not the composite.
Required playthrough and material bonus terms affect the editorial rating out of 5, not the composite.
Two scores, two jobs
Composite formula v2 normalizes each eligible rating input to 100, applies its category weight, and reduces the influence of crowd ratings with small review counts. Crowd inputs with fewer than 10 reviews are excluded. The result is a directional view of broader reputation, not our own verdict. Our editorial rating is shown separately on each review and can differ when the regulator record, payout terms, bonus conditions or product quality point another way.
The date below each composite applies only to its rating inputs. The page's last-updated date also covers regulation, banking, bonuses and product details, so the two dates can differ.
Formula v2: exact weights
Each input is first normalized to 100 and rounded to the nearest whole number. Its effective weight equals the base weight below multiplied by the crowd-volume factor when that factor applies. The final score is the rounded weighted average of all eligible inputs. Because the formula divides by the sum of the eligible effective weights, missing categories do not become zeroes.
| Input category | Base weight | Volume treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Specialist safety expert score | 0.30 | Full weight |
| Specialist review expert score | 0.20 | Full weight |
| Specialist player rating | 0.12 | Crowd factor |
| General consumer rating | 0.16 | Crowd factor |
| iOS app rating | 0.11 | Crowd factor |
| Android app rating | 0.11 | Crowd factor |
| Other eligible crowd rating | 0.10 | Crowd factor |
The 0.10 row is a fallback for an otherwise eligible crowd input. It is not an additional mandatory seventh category.
Crowd-volume factor
Expert inputs keep their full base weight. A crowd input with fewer than 10 reviews receives a factor of 0 and is excluded. At 10 or more reviews, the factor is min(1, log10(review count + 1) / 3). A crowd input with no recorded review count receives a factor of 0.5. Effective weight is base weight × volume factor.
Example: a specialist safety input normalized to 80, a specialist review expert input normalized to 70 and a general consumer input normalized to 90 with 999 reviews use effective weights 0.30, 0.20 and 0.16. They produce round((80×0.30 + 70×0.20 + 90×0.16) / 0.66) = 79. A composite is published only when at least two inputs retain a positive effective weight.
Confidence: how much weight to put on the number
Confidence uses the number of eligible inputs after the volume rules above. It does not measure whether the inputs agree with one another.
- High means four or more eligible inputs.
- Medium means two or three eligible inputs.
- Low means fewer than two eligible inputs. The composite is withheld in that case.
Right now 66 of the 74 casinos we score have two or more eligible rating inputs, and the average composite is 75 out of 100.
What the scores do not mean
The composite is not a live withdrawal test or a product review. It remains a rating-input aggregate. Payout windows, the regulatory record and bonus terms stay outside that formula and affect the editorial rating instead. An estimated payout window remains an estimate, not a test result.
We also don’t sell position. A casino cannot pay to rank higher. There is no paid-placement input in the scoring method. If an operator has a fine on record, the fine stays in the review. The full independence policy is on the affiliate disclosure page.
The AGCO regulatory action tracker keeps a notice, its legal subject and its relationship to a current casino profile separate. A sister-brand link or an action that predates a brand is not treated as direct conduct by that brand.
Game and RNG certification is an eligibility control, not a rating input and not proof of a particular session result. The casino game-testing guide keeps certified components, platform scope and player-facing limits separate.
RG Check public-list status is also separate from the composite. The Ontario RG Check directory distinguishes exact public product listings, non-public listings and unresolved names without turning an absent row into a failed assessment.
What it takes to be listed at all
Inclusion is the first filter, before any scoring. An operator must be authorized to accept legal play in Canada: registered with the AGCO and operating under an agreement with iGaming Ontario, or listed in the AiGC Registered iGaming Sites directory for Alberta. An AGLC registration without AiGC launch approval remains pending context and is not presented as a live casino. Offshore and “Curaçao” sites are left off because there’s no Canadian regulator standing behind them if something goes wrong.
When the scores change
The composite changes only when an eligible rating input, its review count or its eligibility changes. Payout windows, bonuses, regulatory status and product quality can change the separate editorial rating. Each casino profile shows its last-updated date.
Want the bigger picture? Read about the site, see the method applied on the best online casinos ranking, or open any casino review to see the signals for a single operator.