Casino reviews: every operator we cover, measured not recommended

What a review on this site contains

The same six sections in the same order, every time, because a review that varies its structure by operator is easy to bend toward a conclusion. Registration status by province. Where a complaint goes. What safer-gambling controls exist and whether an exclusion register binds the site. Whether player funds are segregated and on what basis. Which laboratory tested the games and whether we could open the certificate. And how plainly the terms are written.

Each of those maps to a criterion with a fixed weight, and the review shows the points awarded rather than a verdict. If a criterion scores zero because we could not find a source, it reads as zero — including on operators we earn commission from.

What a review does not contain

No offer amounts. In Ontario, advertising registration inducements to residents is not permitted, and rather than maintain two versions of every review we simply do not publish them anywhere. It also happens to be the least durable fact about an operator.

No star rating for enjoyment, game selection or how the interface feels. Those are real preferences and we are not the right source for them — a community thread will serve you better. No claim that a site is trustworthy in the abstract, either: we can tell you whether obligations are enforceable, which is a narrower and more checkable question.

Why the scores here look low

The national column runs out of 35 rather than 100, because only three criteria can be judged without knowing your province. Fairness is the other reason the numbers look modest: a registered operator earns eleven of fifteen there, since certification by an AGCO-registered laboratory is a condition of its registration, but the last four points require a certificate we can open ourselves and no operator on this site has one published.

Those numbers will rise as certificates are found, and each change will be recorded in corrections. We would rather publish an honestly incomplete score than assume a claim is true because it is plausible.

Provincial lottery sites

We also cover the operators nobody pays us to mention, because a review index that omitted them would misdescribe the market:

• OLG.ca — Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, scoring 94 of 100
• Espacejeux — Loto-Québec, scoring 91 of 100
• PlayNow.com — British Columbia Lottery Corporation, scoring 89 of 100
• PlayAlberta.ca — Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis, scoring 84 of 100
• Atlantic Lottery — Atlantic Lottery Corporation, scoring 76 of 100

In eleven of thirteen provinces and territories one of these is the only sanctioned option, and for a player who wants the shortest chain of accountability it remains a defensible choice even where commercial alternatives now exist.

Brands we have not scored, and where they are answered

Eleven reviews does not mean eleven registered operators. Ontario's register lists 48 companies behind 82 gaming sites, and a great many of the brands people ask about are siblings of one another. Rather than publish a thin page per brand, we answer those in two places. The operator check will place any of 25 further Ontario-registered brands on the register and say plainly that no score exists for it. And the largest group of all — Zodiac, Yukon Gold, Captain Cooks, Golden Tiger and their siblings — has a single page covering all seven, because every criterion we measure returns the same answer for each of them.

One category is deliberately absent from both. We do not name offshore or cryptocurrency operators anywhere on this site, even to warn about them, because only operators on the provincial register may appear in content an Ontario reader can see. The category itself is covered on crypto and bitcoin casinos.

Where to go next

If you know your province, start there — the provincial indexes apply all six criteria. If you want the reasoning behind the weights, read how we score. If you want to check our work, our sources lists exactly which documents we read.