How BetJury scores casinos

A casino carries two independent scores. They measure different things and can disagree, and that disagreement is informative, so neither is ever folded into the other. A review page does publish an Overall — the mean of the TrustAudit Index, our Experience mark for the product itself, and the JuryScore — but it is printed underneath all three, never in their place.

The TrustAudit score maps to a verdict: Fully Trusted (9.0+), Trusted (8.0–8.9), Reliable (6.5–7.9), Mixed Verdict (5.0–6.4), On Trial (3.0–4.9), and Guilty (below 3.0 or blacklisted).

The order casinos appear in our directory is a weighted blend, minus a penalty for open Tribunal cases past the casino’s deadline. Commercial status is not a term in it.

An operator’s TrustAudit Index is not published until at least three of its six evidence channels have been examined: licensing checked against the regulator’s own register, the terms read for unfair clauses, the monthly withdrawal cap, the typical payout time, the KYC turnaround, and the wider reputational record searched across published complaint databases and review platforms. Below three, the file is too thin for a published score and the score is withheld entirely.

The sixth channel exists because the first five are not enough on their own. A licence and a set of terms are documents an operator writes about itself, and a company can hold both in good order while its players spend a fortnight being asked for a fifth proof of address. So we read what other platforms record too, and count a pattern only where at least two independent ones report it. That charge is then scaled by the operator’s size: documented complaints rise with customer numbers, so counting them unadjusted would rank the largest operators worst and call it evidence.

Player testimony needs real behaviour to mean anything. A casino with too few testimonies shows an early verdict rather than a number, and a casino we have not yet audited reads “Not yet audited”. A brand-new casino with excellent technical specs still gets no community number, because “we don’t know yet” is the honest and more useful answer.

The same discipline governs the editorial score, and it is worth being precise about how. A TrustAudit opens at 10.0 and subtracts findings, which means a file we have not examined subtracts nothing — an operator nobody has audited would otherwise sail to a perfect ten on the strength of everything we never checked. So each audit carries a checklist: licensing verified against the regulator’s register, terms read for unfair clauses, withdrawal cap on record, payout time on record, KYC turnaround on record, and the reputational record searched — the same six channels as above, because a checklist that quietly drops one of them is how a file comes to look finished when it is not. Every check still open costs the operator points and the score is published as provisional, with the open items named on the review page.

A provisional score can rise or fall. Resolving a research gap can remove an uncertainty deduction, while a substantiated finding can add a deduction. Examining every channel does not settle an automated reading or an unresolved finding. Below three examined channels we publish no number at all — because a licence and a payout time are the two facts an operator states about itself on its own homepage, and taking them on trust is not an audit. The third check is where someone has to open the terms, the cashier limits or the verification record, and it is the first point at which two operators can honestly come out differently.

That is why a large, well-known brand may read Not yet rated here while a smaller operator we have finished auditing carries a number. The ranking reflects the state of the evidence rather than the size of the company, and we would rather show you an unfinished file honestly than a confident number we cannot defend.

We may earn a commission when you sign up through a link on this site, and we tell you so next to every such link. Commercial arrangements — including whether an operator pays us and on what terms — have no path into either score. Paid placements are labelled Sponsored, kept visually distinct, and never mixed into score-ranked lists. We link to every operator on the register, wherever you are reading from, and no regulator counts for more than another here — each review states the licence that operator holds and where to check it.

A Guilty verdict is applied only against documented, consistently-applied criteria, and every operator is given a right of reply before a listing is published. Grounds include: confirmed refusal to pay verified, legitimate winnings; confiscation of balances without valid, disclosed cause; operating without a valid licence for the markets it targets; materially misleading terms; and repeated failure to engage in good faith with our Tribunal. We publish the reason and the evidence trail for every listing.