Methodology

The score

Every provider gets a single editorial score out of 10. The dataset is the foundation, but it does not calculate the result: the score expresses our whole view of the product, company, deal, risks, execution, and insights that do not always fit into a field. A provider can look like a 10/10 feature checklist and still be a 6/10 choice in practice. Payment never affects the order.

The six investigative lenses

How we assign the number

The editor investigates the structured fields, product behavior, operating history, commercial reality, market feedback, contradictions, and risk signals, then assigns one overall score. The six lenses keep the investigation broad; they are not a formula and do not constrain the conclusion. More populated fields or more advertised features do not automatically produce a higher rating.

What we score, and what we ignore

We score the things that change what you ship and what you pay. We don't score brand buzz, ad budgets, or how slick a sales deck looks. If it doesn't affect the build or the economics, it doesn't move the score.

How confident we are in each data point

A populated value can carry one of three confidence labels, and the “% verified” readout is our editorial confidence in the conclusions. Missing information has no separate confidence state: we keep investigating until we can publish a defensible value or must leave the field empty.

How we build the picture

We investigate official records, product documentation, market behavior, operator and user experience, interviews, reviews, indirect signals, and contradictions across the public record. These are research inputs, not a feed we reproduce. The value published here is our best current conclusion. Directly established facts are marked verified; conclusions that rely mainly on company statements or indirect evidence are labeled accordingly.

What this model doesn't capture

No score is the whole story. We're explicit about the edges:

• It scores the platform and the deal, not the deep internals — we don't independently test sportsbook odds-trading quality, live-dealer latency, or day-to-day UX.
• Most commercial terms are quote-only, so the Commercial score leans on transparency and what's public, not the number you'll actually be quoted.
• Scores are our editorial judgement applied consistently, not a lab certification or a paid audit.
• This is a B2B view for operators choosing a platform — it is not a player-facing casino rating.
• The market moves fast; a score reflects the last review, and we re-score when the facts change.

No pay-to-rank

No provider pays to appear, to rank higher, or to change what a review says. We don't sell placements or sponsored slots to the companies we cover. Our Advertising Policy has the full rules.

Corrections, updates, and provider responses

We publish our best current conclusion, not a frozen snapshot. A correction is made when our published record was materially wrong. A material update is made when the underlying reality changed after publication. A clarification improves the wording without changing the conclusion. We do not erase the distinction between them.

Anyone may challenge a fact. Providers may also submit a concise, on-record response. We verify that an official response comes from the provider or an authorized representative, then publish it separately from our analysis when it materially addresses the review. A response is never a paid placement, does not overwrite our wording, and does not change a score by itself. New evidence can change our conclusion; pressure, payment, or disagreement cannot.

Material decisions appear in our Editorial recordwith the date, what changed, why it changed, and any effect on the score. Minor spelling, formatting, and layout changes are not logged. To challenge a record, email us at sup@igamingplatformproviders.com.

Keeping it current

Provider data changes, so we revisit it. This model and the data behind it were last reviewed in August 2026.