Our information comes from the operator and the regulator

Facts on this site come from the source closest to them, in this order:

1. The operator's own site, terms and cashier pages, for bonuses, limits, payment methods and game counts
2. Provincial gambling boards and the National Gambling Board, for licensing and regulatory detail
3. Court judgments and legislation, for anything about the law
4. Game studios and payment providers, for product detail the operator does not publish
5. Trade press, only where no primary source exists, and named as such

We do not use another comparison site as a source. Where a figure appears on three affiliate pages and nowhere on the operator's own site, it does not go on ours.

Game and provider counts are our own. We count what is in the lobby instead of repeating the number in an operator's marketing copy, and the two often differ.

We cover offshore casinos, and we say so

Some casinos we review hold a South African provincial licence. Many hold a licence from Curaçao, Malta or elsewhere. Both appear on this site, and every review states which.

That distinction matters more than any score. With a South African licence, a provincial board can investigate a complaint, penalise the operator and suspend its licence. Offshore licences give no South African authority any power over the casino, so your only complaint route goes through whichever regulator issued that licence.

We publish the licence and the issuing authority on every review so you can weigh that yourself. For South African licences, our licensing authorities page lists all nine provincial boards and shows how to check a licence number against the national register.

Every figure on this site shows a date

Bonus terms change, payment methods disappear, and licences move. Anything that ages shows a "Last verified" date, and that date tells you when a person last checked it against the source. You will find it under operator data tables, licence details, and anywhere else a figure could move.

Re-checks happen on a schedule and whenever something prompts one:

• Readers report that something has changed
• Operators change terms, a licence or the payment lineup
• Regulators publish new figures or a new decision
• The page comes up for scheduled review

Where we have not re-checked something recently, the date shows that instead of hiding it.

Unverified claims stay off the site

Plenty of numbers circulate in this industry with no source behind them. Payout percentages nobody publishes, player counts nobody audits, withdrawal times lifted from a press release. We publish none of it.

The rules we work to:

• Every figure needs a source we can point to before it goes on the site
• Operator marketing copy is not evidence, and we do not repeat it as fact
• Where we cannot confirm a claim, we leave it out instead of hedging it
• Where two sources disagree, we say so and name both

This costs us content. Take an operator's own "97% average payout" claim. It would fill a line in a review, and dropping it makes the review shorter and more accurate.

Commission plays no part in what a review says

Operators pay us commission when a reader signs up through our links, which is how the site stays free. That arrangement funds the testing and changes nothing about the findings.

Rankings follow scores, scores follow published criteria, and no operator can buy a position, a rating, or the removal of criticism. We have marked operators down and dropped them despite the commission. Our affiliate disclosure sets out the model in full.

Some operators come off the site entirely

Low scores still leave an operator listed, with its problems written up so you can judge them. Certain conduct goes past that.

We remove an operator when it:

• Refuses to pay out a win we have confirmed as legitimate
• Changes its terms after the fact to avoid paying
• Voids winnings on grounds that appear nowhere in its own published terms
• Leaves documented player complaints unanswered over a sustained period

Removal costs us whatever commission the operator was paying, and that is exactly why the rule holds.

Who writes and who checks

Each review comes from a member of our editorial team, and an editor fact-checks it before it goes live. Both names appear on the page, the author first and the fact-checker below, so you can see who wrote a review and who verified it.

We check every factual claim against a primary source before publishing, which usually means the operator's own pages or a regulator's register. The person writing a review does not know what the casino pays us.

Nothing is published without a human check

Every figure on a review is one we have confirmed against the operator's own pages, and every licence number is one we have matched against the National Gambling Board's register of verified operators. Every bonus term comes from the operator's terms, not from its promotional banner.

One named person is accountable for each page, and nothing reaches the site without that check.

Corrections are made openly

We get things wrong. Bonus terms shift, a payment method disappears, a figure we verified in March stops being true in September.

When we find an error, or a reader reports one, we check it against the source and fix the page. Where the correction changes something material, such as a licence, a score, or a payment detail, we update the verified date so you can see the page has moved.

We do not quietly delete the problem. Where a review was wrong about a withdrawal time, it gets a corrected withdrawal time, not a missing section.

Tell us if we got something wrong

Accuracy matters more to us than any single review reading well. If you find a figure out of date, a bonus term we described incorrectly, or an operator we rated too kindly, write to [email protected].

Operators are welcome to use the same address. We will check what you send against the source and correct the page where you are right.

These guidelines were last reviewed in September 2026.