The ratings that stand in for an award
Most casinos have never won anything, so the question becomes what else can be read about them, and the answer is a handful of ratings that each measure a different thing.
Ad disclosure: some casino links are affiliate links; we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. It never affects what a page says. 18+.
What a rating measures, when there is nothing on a shelf
An award is a moment, decided once by a panel (or, at two of the bodies, a public vote) and then fixed for ever in a press release, whereas a rating is a "running account" (a figure recalculated as complaints arrive and terms change) that moves when the thing it describes moves. That difference matters more than the two words suggest, because most of the casinos anybody will ever look at have won nothing at all, and the honest question is therefore not which of them won but what else we can read about them from outside.
The objection comes before the method, because any reader has it ready: a portal earning its living from the same operators it grades cannot be an impartial judge of them. That is the wrong test. The right one is whether the arithmetic is published, so that you can see which deductions were taken and for what; a portal that shows its working can be argued with, and a badge showing nothing at all cannot be argued with, which is precisely what makes it so comfortable to display.
The three ratings on this site, and what each one counts
The "Safety Index" (Casino Guru's figure from zero to ten, always published with a band such as "Very high" or "Below average") weighs the size of a casino against its complaint record, the fairness of the terms it writes (the clauses a player meets only when cashing out), and the conduct of the other casinos run by the same company. It is the one rating in this trade whose deductions are itemised brand by brand, which is why it appears on more pages here than any other, and why we read the 82 brand pages touching our lists one at a time rather than summarising them from somebody else's table.
Casinomeister publishes no number at all, placing a casino instead in one of five states ("accredited", the neutral zone, the "grey zone", "not recommended" and "rogue"). An accreditation there is harder to hold than a rating anywhere else, because it can be suspended when the complaints resume, and two casinos in the wider set we read have lost theirs (one suspended, one revoked).
Trustpilot measures something different again, and it appears here only with the number of reviews behind it (4.0 from 2,465 reviewers is evidence, while the same figure from nine reviewers is noise). It records the experience of people who chose to write, a "self-selected" group by construction, and that limitation stays attached to the figure permanently.
The one number this site refuses to print
Casino Guru also publishes "black points" (a running penalty total drawn from complaints that were never resolved), and we print them on no page of this site. The reason is arithmetical rather than editorial: on the brands of one large group, between 90 and 97 per cent of the points come not from the brand itself but from its "related casinos" (other sites run by the same company), so the number beside a name is mostly the record of its siblings.
Published without that split, it would be the most misleading figure on the page!
One portal we cannot read at all, and we would rather say so than leave a gap quietly. AskGamblers returns an error (an HTTP 403, every time) to our working environment, so no AskGamblers rating appears anywhere on the site, and the three "AskGamblers Awards" in the ledgers come from that body's winners archive rather than from the ratings that would not open.
What the scale really looks like
On the ten-point index, nine is ordinary for a licensed house rather than exceptional. Below five, the publisher tells readers in plain words to steer clear. The useful reading is the distance from nine, not the distance from ten.
The shape of the numbers, once there are a few hundred of them
The spread is narrow at the top and very wide at the bottom, which is the most useful single thing to come out of reading these pages in bulk. The brands listed here sit between 8.9 and 9.5 (Grand Mondial at 9.5 with 15 complaints recorded, Zodiac Casino at 9.3 with 32, Videoslots at 9.3 with 71), and a gap of a tenth tells you almost nothing, because it moves with the volume of play rather than with the conduct of the house.
At the other end the same index runs down past one, and there the numbers stop being gradations and become warnings: the publisher advises avoiding the casino outright, which is a sentence rather than a score, and it is the reason those brands appear on no page of this site. We had not met a figure below one before this project.
Where two ratings point in opposite directions
Spin Genie carries 9.0 on the safety index and 3.1 on Trustpilot, from 2,419 reviewers, and both figures were read on 20 October 2026. Neither number is wrong, and they are not in contradiction: one grades the terms, the licence and the handling of complaints, while the other records how it felt to be a customer, and a correctly licensed casino with slow "withdrawals" (the payout of a balance, which is where most disputes begin) scores well on the first and badly on the second.
LuckyDays shows the same split the other way, with 8.9 on the index, 44 complaints behind it, and 4.3 on Trustpilot from 1,381 reviewers. Where the two disagree we print both with their dates, and the page says which measures what, because averaging them would produce a number describing neither.
The nine brands a good score could not save
Nine casinos with indices between 8.4 and 8.9 appear on no page of this site, and their scores had nothing to do with it. In each case the licence could not be written out in full: the asset register gives a Curacao arrangement whose "licensee" (the company a permission is issued to) and number could not be confirmed in any register, and our second admission rule holds that a card unable to name its regulator is not doing the job a card exists for.
That rule costs brands that would otherwise be listed, and the cost is cheaper than a licence line nobody can stand behind. The nine are not accused of anything, and their absence is a statement about the evidence rather than about their conduct.
Reading a score the way these pages read it
Three habits make these figures useful, and all three take about a minute of your time. Read the band rather than the decimal, since "Very high" is the claim and 9.3 is merely where that claim landed on the day; look for the "complaint count" (the number of disputes the portal has recorded) beside the score, because a high index on a casino with 71 complaints and a high index on one with two are different facts; and check the date, because every figure here carries the day it was read, and an undated score quietly turns into a falsehood.
These ratings are the second-best evidence we have, after a licence read in a register and before anything a casino says about itself. They are also the only evidence there is for the great majority of casinos, which have never entered a competition and never will.
VisitMalta Gaming Authority · Kahnawake · AGCO for Ontario, on a separate site
VisitMGA/CRP/171/2009/01, Skill On Net Limited (Malta)
VisitCuracao Gaming Control Board OGL/2024, Raging Rhino N.V.
Questions
Which of these ratings should a player trust most?
The one whose method is published and whose evidence a reader can open. On that test the complaint-based indexes come first, because every point deducted points at a case somebody can read, and a star average from unverified reviews comes last.
Why do you print the date beside every score?
Because these numbers move, sometimes by a point in a month, and a score without a date is a number that ages silently. The date tells a reader how much to trust it today.
You quote Casino Guru often. Is it independent?
It runs a free complaint service and publishes its scoring method in detail, which is more than most portals do; it also earns from the operators it lists, like every comparison site including this one. We quote the number and the date, and we link to the page so the reader can weigh the source.