We rank on seven categories, weighted toward the ones that actually matter when you try to leave with your money. The overall score is a weighted average of seven sub-scores, each on a ten-point scale, calculated automatically at build time. Every sub-score is visible on each review page, so you can see which category dragged the headline rating up or down.
| Category | Weight | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Crypto payments | 20% | Coin breadth, network options, deposit minimums, withdrawal speed, KYC thresholds. |
| Welcome bonus | 20% | Headline match, rollover, game weighting, max bet limits, expiry, expected value to the player. |
| Odds quality | 15% | Price versus industry on NFL and NBA main lines; vig across soccer main markets; prop depth. |
| Game variety | 15% | Provider list, count of live titles, originals suite, live dealer depth, progressive presence. |
| Platform UX | 10% | Desktop and mobile web quality, search, navigation, cashier clarity, load times. |
| Live betting | 10% | In-play latency, market depth, cash-out availability, live streaming coverage. |
| Customer support | 10% | Chat hours, median first-response time, agent competence on bonus and payment issues. |
Payments is tied for the top weight because at a crypto casino, the thing most likely to go wrong and also the thing most worth complaining about is a withdrawal that does not arrive. Welcome bonus shares the top weight because the headline offer is also the single element most capable of destroying player EV when its rollover is set wrong. Odds quality is weighted lower than payments, which will feel backwards to sportsbook specialists; the rationale is that the sample of reliable operators with competitive pricing is small enough that the difference between 8 and 10 on odds matters less than the difference between 6 and 10 on payments.
It does not capture jurisdiction-specific friction. A Stake account in Brazil behaves differently from a Stake account in Canada; we test from one jurisdiction (central Europe) and flag known exceptions in the review text rather than averaging them into the score. It also does not capture stake-size effects. A $100 player and a $10,000 player get different KYC handling, different risk reviews, and different bonus terms at every operator we tested; the scores reflect mid-stakes play, roughly $50 to $1,000 per session.
Every brand is re-tested quarterly. Scores change when the product changes, not on a schedule. If a site launches a new welcome bonus, the welcome bonus sub-score is re-scored within a week of launch. Payment and support sub-scores are updated whenever a reader flags a material regression and we confirm it in a spot check. The master review dates are stamped on each page.
Two known limitations. First, withdrawal speeds can regress across a quarter in ways that do not show up until a large sample accumulates; our ten-cashout sample is enough to catch a median shift, not every tail event. Second, bonus EV math assumes slots RTP is what the operator publishes; we do not run independent RTP tests, which would require far larger samples than our testing supports. Readers who spot a discrepancy between our score and their own experience are invited to email editorial.
Operator screenshots shown on review pages were sourced from operator websites and third-party review sites (Wizard of Odds, CCN) where direct capture was blocked by Cloudflare. Each screenshot is captioned with the source site and the date captured. Where the operator logo appears, it remains the property of the operator.