The method in one paragraph
This ranking is documentary. We do not hold accounts at the operators we list, we did not deposit our own money, and we did not time a withdrawal at any of them. What we do is read each operator's own record and the partner terms behind it, record the same seven fields for every brand with the date attached, and rank on what those fields say. Nothing in the order encodes a measurement we never took.
The seven fields we record for every operator
- The welcome offer, exactly as published, including its cap.
- Any bonus code, and whether that code belongs to the casino offer or a different product.
- Any no-deposit offer.
- The free-spin count attached to the welcome.
- The wagering multiple.
- The minimum deposit.
- The states the operator instructs its partners to exclude.
Where a field is empty at source we record it as empty. We do not fill a gap from a competitor's page, and we do not describe a programme an operator has not named. Across the fifteen operators on this site that produces real variation: nine name a loyalty scheme and six do not, thirteen name an ongoing offer and two do not, and one brand publishes neither a wagering figure nor a minimum deposit.
The five weighted criteria
- What the welcome pays. The published figure and its cap, read against the rest of the lineup rather than in isolation.
- Cost to clear it. The wagering multiple against the lineup median of 35x. A larger match at a higher multiple is the more expensive offer, not the better one.
- Cost to start. The minimum deposit.
- Offers after the welcome. The named reload and loyalty records, weighted down where a programme is named without any figure attached.
- How much is published. A complete record scores above an incomplete one. An operator publishing a worse offer fully ranks above one publishing a better offer partially, because a term you cannot read is a term you cannot hold anybody to.
What we do not measure, and why we say so
No payout speed. We did not time a withdrawal at any operator on this site, so there is no payout column, no fastest-paying claim, and no ranking weight for it. A payout time with no test date beside it is advertising, and an affiliate page is the last place it should be trusted.
No safety rating. Nobody in Wisconsin has vetted these operators, so we have no basis for the word safe and do not use it. What we can assess is whether an operator names a licensing body, whether that body maintains a public register the claim can be checked against, and whether the commercial material contradicts the terms behind it.
No game counts, and no site-wide payout percentages. Neither is published anywhere we could cite.
How we handle a code we will not print
Two operators on our lineup advertise a bonus code that we withhold, because it follows a pattern used by other affiliates and would not necessarily credit an account opened from here. We label those as withheld rather than as absent. A code that exists and is being held back is a different fact from no code existing, and collapsing the two into one default would state the opposite of the truth. Ask the operator which code applies.
Independence
Commercial terms do not reach the person writing. No operator has been moved up for paying more, and no operator sees a page before it publishes. If an operator's published terms get worse, its position falls. The clearest evidence we can offer is that our own reviews say out loud where a lower-ranked brand beats a higher-ranked one on a specific number.
Corrections
If a figure on this site is wrong or has changed at source, write to [email protected] with the operator and the term, and we will check it against source and correct it. Every bonus figure carries the date we recorded it, which is what makes a correction checkable rather than a matter of opinion.