Editorial Review Policy
This page explains how we select operators for review, how we form our assessments, what our editorial scores mean, and how we maintain consistency across different operators. Transparency here is not a formality — it is how readers can decide whether to trust our comparisons.
Operator selection
We include a limited number of operators at any one time. This is intentional — comparison sites that list hundreds of casinos cannot meaningfully assess each one. Our selection is based on the following baseline criteria:
- The operator must hold a current, active UK Gambling Commission licence
- The operator must be accessible to UK residents
- The operator must have been operating long enough to assess stability
- The operator must provide accessible information on responsible gambling tools and terms
Beyond the baseline, we consider operator diversity — we aim to include a mix of platform types (casino-focused, lottery-oriented, sports crossover, large-scale versus specialist) rather than listing operators that all offer an identical experience.
Assessment criteria
Each operator is assessed across the following seven categories. These are applied consistently across every operator we review.
1. Site usability
We assess how easy it is to navigate the site, find games, access account settings, and complete standard tasks such as setting deposit limits. We look at page load speed, search functionality, and account management flow.
2. Payment options
The methods available for deposit and withdrawal, processing times, minimum and maximum limits, and whether the operator accepts commonly used UK payment options such as Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal.
3. Game range and quality
The breadth and variety of games available — slots, table games, live casino, lottery, and specialty titles. We also consider game provider diversity and whether the library is meaningfully curated or simply padded.
4. Mobile experience
Whether the operator provides a dedicated app, a mobile-optimised site, or both. We assess responsiveness, load speed, and whether key functions are accessible on smaller screens.
5. Responsible gambling tools
The tools available — deposit limits, loss limits, session timers, reality checks, self-exclusion — and how accessible they are. We specifically assess whether these are easily found or buried in settings, and whether they function promptly.
6. Terms transparency
Whether offer conditions are visible before a player opts in. Whether wagering requirements, game weighting, and withdrawal conditions are written in plain language. Whether key restrictions are presented upfront or in small print.
7. UKGC licence status
We verify that each operator holds an active UK Gambling Commission licence using the UKGC public register. Operators that cannot be verified are not included.
How scores are calculated
Each of the seven criteria is assessed and assigned a raw score. These are combined into a composite editorial score displayed on comparison cards, expressed as a decimal out of 10. The scores are not based on customer review aggregates and are not assigned by the operators themselves.
We do not award identical high scores to all operators — differentiation is the purpose of the scoring system. An operator with limited payment options or difficult-to-find responsible gambling tools will score lower than one that does these things well, regardless of brand recognition or size.
Scores are editorial assessments only. They do not represent regulatory quality ratings, legal compliance status, or guarantees of any player experience.
Review updates and accuracy
Operator features change. Payment methods are added and removed. Terms are updated. Responsible gambling tools improve or, occasionally, deteriorate. We aim to review our operator listings regularly and update assessment content when material changes are identified. If you notice that information on a specific operator is outdated or inaccurate, you can flag this via the Contact page.
Editorial independence
Our editorial content is produced independently of the commercial relationships described in our Affiliate Disclosure. We do not share review drafts with operators before publication. We do not allow operators to amend or condition our assessment. If a commercial relationship requires positive editorial treatment, we do not enter into it.