Two casinos, most of a name, and nearly nine points between them

Two casinos trading today share most of a name, belong to companies that have nothing to do with each other, and sit at opposite ends of the same ten-point scale (the "Safety Index" published by Casino Guru) at one independent portal. The brand reviewed on this page is the one at the top of that scale, inside a band labelled "Very high", and the distance to the other one is the only subject this review really has.

A reader will assume that nobody could mistake the two, which is reasonable until you watch how a brand name travels (it travels badly). Search results are sorted by name, and never by owner.

An empty award column, and why the page is still here

No "winners" list we opened carries this name in any year, and none of them carries the group of sixteen brands that owns it either, which we checked on its own account (sixteen names, and then the group) because a "group award" would still have been worth recording. That leaves the portal figure as the only measurable thing on the card above (nine point three, read on 20 October 2026), and it is a good one, so the page turns on what the figure does and does not cover.

Before the figure, though, the collision, because a number is worthless if a reader cannot be sure which company it was computed for. That is not a theoretical worry here, since the two scores involved are nine point three and nought point four.

The other Zodiac

The casino with the near-identical name is owned by a different company, holds a different licence, and was placed at nought point four by the same portal that gave this brand nine point three. It sits in the band that portal calls "Very low" (the floor of the scale, where two other brands we excluded also sit), and the portal tells players, in a sentence of its own, to "avoid" it.

The arithmetic is the part that stays with you, and it is worth doing once in full. Eight point nine points of a ten-point scale separate two brands whose names differ by a single word, which is the widest gap between any two names on this entire site; the pair also sit next to each other in any table ordered by name.

Collisions of this kind propagate through perfectly ordinary mechanisms rather than through anybody's bad faith. Tables are sorted alphabetically, search boxes complete a half-typed name, and almost every page in this trade writes a "brand" without naming the "operator" behind it (two words that are not synonyms), so the three habits together are enough to move a score from one business to another.

The cost of all this falls on a reader who is doing exactly the right thing, which is the detail that makes it worth a section. Somebody who checks the name "Zodiac" at an independent portal and finds nine point three may be reading the card for the brand on this page, or may be reading a card about a company nobody here would list; and somebody who finds nought point four and walks away may be walking away from a brand with one of the better scores in our set.

There is an "admission rule" of our own behind all this, and it explains why the other casino has no page here. A brand that an independent portal tells players to avoid does not appear on this site at all (the rule is printed on our method page, and it has excluded about thirty names), whatever its own name resembles, so the only place that name appears is as a warning in a paragraph like this one.

Who runs the one we list

Behind it stands Apollo Entertainment Ltd, which trades as part of the Casino Rewards group, and its paperwork runs through the Maltese authority together with Kahnawake, while the province of Ontario is reached from an address of its own under a "registration" (permission to trade, and no verdict at all on the trading). The brand has been online since 2001 (twenty-five years, by this page's calendar), which makes it one of the older names on the site and, on the award record, one of the quietest.

Its complaint file is the one interesting exception inside that group of sixteen, and it sits oddly beside the score. That same "Safety Index" card carried thirty-two complaints against the brand when we opened it on 20 October 2026, which is the second largest file among its sixteen siblings (one of them stands at thirty-seven, and one at zero), and it sits behind the same nine point three that most of those siblings carry.

That combination deserves a sentence of caution rather than a shrug. A score that barely moves across sixteen brands while the volumes behind it range from zero to thirty-seven is describing a single platform, a single set of "terms and conditions" and a single complaints desk; it is not telling you much about this address in particular.

Enforcement, in the two registers that apply

Britain is not among the regulators here, so nothing about the brand can appear in the Commission's register at all. Neither of the two registers that govern it held any "regulatory action" against the operator on the day we searched (two lists, one date, nothing on either).

The two checks that make a name collision harmless

The first instrument is a refusal, and it costs nothing: never accept a casino identified by brand name alone. Read the operating company out of the "footer" of the site itself, then look that company up in a regulator's register, because the company is the thing a regulator licenses and the brand is only what it trades under.

The second instrument is shorter still, since the two domains differ as well as the two company names. Put the two addresses side by side, note which of them the portal page in front of you actually resolves to (the browser's address bar will say), and the whole confusion dissolves in about fifteen seconds.

Applied here, both checks come out the same way, and the answer is reassuring in a narrow sense rather than a broad one. This brand is run by a named company under two named regulators, it carries one of the higher scores on this site, and it has never won anything at all (one company, two regulators, no trophies)!

• 

  Grand Mondial Casino

  Malta Gaming Authority · Kahnawake · AGCO for Ontario, on a separate site

  Visit
• 

  Videoslots

  MGA/CRP/258/2014, Videoslots Limited (Malta)

  Visit
• 

  888 Casino

  Virtual Digital Services Limited under MGA/CRP/121/2006, as the operator's own terms state · 888 UK Limited, Gambling Commission account 39028, in Britain

  Visit

Questions