Casino and Bookmaker Rating Methodology

A score in our ranking is neither an editorial preference nor the result of a deal with an operator. It is a number made up of six criteria with weights set in advance, and we must be able to back every point with a fact: a register extract, a transaction screenshot, a clause of the bonus rules or a support reply with the time it was received.

This page describes our casino rating methodology in full: what we check, why some criteria weigh more than others, how the scale works, how often we review scores and what makes us remove an operator from the ranking. We publish the methodology precisely so that it can be challenged: if you believe a particular score does not follow these rules, write to us, and we will either correct the score or show you what it is based on.

Who Assigns the Scores

The score is drafted by the author who ran the test, and then checked by an editor and a fact-checker. The author is responsible for the primary data: they register an account, make a deposit, complete verification, request a withdrawal and record the timings. The fact-checker separately verifies everything that does not depend on one person’s experience: the license status in the register, the name of the legal entity and the current bonus terms in the operator’s rules.

Any discrepancy between the author’s scores and the editor’s check is resolved in favor of the document, not the impression. If the author rated payouts highly but the fact-checker found a clause in the rules about additional checks for amounts above a certain limit, the score goes down and the restriction is stated in the review.

Who worked on each review is shown in its byline. Author profiles with their experience and areas of responsibility are in the editorial team section.

Entry Requirement for the Ranking

Only operators that hold a valid permit from the state agency PlayCity at the time of publication get into the ranking of licensed operators. This is not a criterion that earns points but an entry requirement: no license, no place in the ranking, regardless of bonuses, game selection or website quality.

The reason is simple. All other characteristics of an operator only matter if you can actually get your winnings and have somewhere to turn if you are refused. Winnings on a platform outside Ukrainian regulation have no legal protection: you cannot complain to PlayCity, and a claim against a company registered in another jurisdiction rarely goes anywhere in practice. So a generous bonus on an unlicensed site is not an advantage; it is multiplied by zero.

We check the status against the public register at playcity.gov.ua while preparing a review and again during scheduled checks. Licenses do get revoked: in 2025–2026 the market has already seen permits withdrawn from major brands. If an operator loses its license, it leaves the ranking, and the review gets a corresponding note with the date.

Six Criteria and Why They Carry Different Weights

The final score is the sum of six ratings, each multiplied by its own weight. The weights differ on purpose: an operator’s characteristics are not equally important to a player, and an even split would produce convenient but misleading numbers.

Safety and Legal Status: 25%

This has the highest weight because it determines whether everything else matters. We look not only at whether a license exists but also at how verifiable the operator is: whether the legal entity is named, whether it matches the register data, whether the contacts work, how self-exclusion tools and age verification are implemented, and whether the processing of personal data is described transparently. An operator that hides who owns it gets a low score even with a valid permit.

Payouts: 20%

This is the only point where an operator’s promises become verifiable. We rate the actual withdrawal time from our tests, not the one stated in the “Payments” section; whether there are fees and how large they are; withdrawal limits per transaction, day and month; verification requirements and how transparently they are described in advance. We also deduct points when the first payout drags on without explanation or documents are requested again.

Markets and Event Coverage: 20% (Bookmakers)

The number of sports, the depth of markets for top events, the availability of niche markets, how live betting works and how quickly odds are updated. We also check whether markets get narrower and limits get lower for winning accounts.

Game Selection: 15% (Casinos)

The number of titles matters less than the provider lineup: certified software from major studios means a tested random number generator and the stated RTP. A catalog of three thousand games from unknown suppliers is worse than a thousand from proven ones.

Bonus Terms: 15% for Casinos, 10% for Bookmakers

Here we deliberately rate the terms, not the size. Bonus size is the most advertised and least informative metric: a welcome package with x50 wagering, a maximum bet cap and three days to complete it is worth less than a more modest offer with x25 and a month to wager. The score is made up of the wagering requirement, game contribution to wagering, bet limits, the winnings cap and how honestly all of this is presented before registration rather than in the small print of the rules.

Support: 15%

We send the same inquiries to every operator: one simple question and one complex one related to bonus rules or verification. We rate the time to first response, whether the answer addressed the question, whether Ukrainian is available and how accessible the channels are. A template reply that has nothing to do with the question counts as no reply.

Mobile App: 10%

The lowest weight, because a good responsive version of the website covers most needs. We check stability, feature completeness compared with desktop, availability in app stores or clear instructions for the APK, and how login and payments work.

How We Test

Every operator goes through the same sequence, and its results are what the scores are based on.

First comes the document check: a search in the PlayCity register, verification of the legal entity, and reading the full rules and bonus terms before registering. This is the part most reviews skip, filling in numbers from the operator’s promotional materials instead.

Next, registration and a deposit of our own money. We complete verification on standard terms, without affiliate accounts or fast-tracking: the player’s experience differs from the partner’s, and it is the former that interests us.

Then a withdrawal request. We record when it was submitted, when the money actually arrived, every interim document request and every message from the operator. These timings are what go into the table instead of the stated ones.

In parallel, we send two support inquiries and test the app on a real device.

We state the results with the test date in the review. If a stage could not be completed, for example the withdrawal was blocked or verification was never finished, it is not skipped but described as a result.

A score of 10 does not mean perfection; it means no documented issues at the time of the check. A score below 4 for safety or payouts is a blocker: the operator does not get into the ranking even if its other ratings are high, because in that case the average hides what matters most.

Updating and Reviewing Scores

A score has a date, and without a date it is worthless: bonus terms change every month, licenses get revoked, and payout times grow under load.

We check license status every month and additionally whenever the regulator publishes news. Bonus and promo code terms are checked monthly. Payout times are checked quarterly with a repeat test. A full review update happens once a year or immediately after a significant change at the operator.

We record exactly what changed in the changelog at the bottom of each review. The date of the last check is shown next to the score. If you see a score without a date, it is our mistake, so please let us know.

A Separate Methodology for Unlicensed Operators

We also review platforms without a Ukrainian license, but under a different methodology and in a separate section. Mixing them with licensed operators in a single ranking is unacceptable: they do not share a common frame of reference.

For such operators, the “safety” criterion is rated on other grounds: a permit from another jurisdiction, years on the market, a public history of complaints and unpaid winnings, certification of the random number generator and reputation with independent dispute services. The maximum possible score for this criterion is lower for these operators than for licensed ones, and this is built into the methodology on purpose.

Every page in that section starts with a warning about the legal consequences: a dispute with such an operator is not protected by Ukrainian law, a complaint to PlayCity is not possible, access to the site may be restricted, and tax obligations on winnings remain with the player. We believe such a section should exist and cover the risks rather than stay silent about them, but we will not present it as an equal alternative to the legal market.

What We Never Do

The site earns affiliate commissions. This is the standard model for review projects, and we do not hide it. But affiliate fees affect neither the score nor the position: criteria weights are set in advance and are the same for everyone, and an operator without a license does not get into the main ranking under any commercial terms. How monetization works is explained in our affiliate disclosure.