How We Rate Online Casinos

Last updated: 7 May 2026

Every operator reviewed on Skycrown is scored against the same eight-criterion framework, with weighted contributions to a single 0-to-10 result. The criteria, weights, definitions, and red flags are listed below so any score can be reverse-engineered from the review text. The methodology that produces the underlying observations is on the How We Test page; this page describes what is done with those observations once they exist. The wider context for the site as a whole sits on the About page, the funding model behind it on the Affiliate Disclosure page, and the flagship operator review on the Skycrown Casino homepage.

The eight criteria

Each criterion is scored 0 to 10 against the definition below, then multiplied by its weight. The weighted scores are summed, divided by the total weight (100), and the result is the operator's overall rating, also 0 to 10. No criterion can be skipped: an operator that cannot be tested on a given criterion (for example, withdrawals never reach payout because verification is stuck) loses the points for that criterion.

1. 20%
   1. Withdrawal performanceThe most important single criterion, weighted accordingly. Scored on three sub-points: cleared time from request to bank/card credit, consistency across repeated withdrawals, and the rate at which withdrawals are reversed by the operator. Targets: 0–24h clears earns 9–10, 24–72h earns 6–8, 3–7 days earns 3–5, beyond 7 days earns 0–2. A pattern of reversed withdrawals or sudden new requests at the cashout stage caps this criterion at 4 regardless of speed.
2. 15%
   2. Bonus terms and arithmeticHow honest the welcome offer and ongoing promotions are once the small print is unpacked. Wagering multiplier, eligible games, contribution rates, max-cashout caps, expiry, and the maximum bet permitted while a bonus is active are all factored in. A bonus that pays out as advertised under reasonable play earns 8–10. A bonus that hides the eligibility rules or breaks at high probability under normal play earns 0–4.
3. 15%
   3. Banking breadth and consistencyHow many payment methods are listed, whether each works in both directions (deposit and withdrawal), whether name-matching rules are enforced consistently, and whether currency conversion fees are disclosed up front. Australian-specific rails (PayID, POLi, BPAY) are weighted because of their importance to local players.
4. 10%
   4. Game catalogue depth and qualityTotal titles, balance between pokies, table games and live dealer rooms, and (most importantly) the named studios involved. A catalogue that combines major studios such as Pragmatic Play, NetEnt, Microgaming and Evolution Gaming with several smaller specialist studios scores higher than a catalogue dominated by little-known white-label aggregators.
5. 10%
   5. Licensing and corporate transparencyWhich regulator licenses the operator, how easily the licence can be verified on the regulator's public register, who actually owns the corporate vehicle, and how clearly the terms and conditions identify the contracting entity. Curaçao licensing is treated as the floor; MGA, UKGC or comparable scores higher; absent or fake licensing scores zero and the review carries a warning.
6. 10%
   6. Customer support qualityResponse time on live chat (cold), depth of answers on substantive questions (not just FAQ pastes), availability of email support, and whether the support team can reach a human escalation route. A bot-only support layer caps this criterion at 4.
7. 10%
   7. Mobile experienceWhether the site loads cleanly on iOS Safari and Android Chrome at typical screen sizes, whether the cashier and KYC flows work on mobile (often the weakest link), and whether the operator pushes a mobile app when an HTML5 site would do. Apps with poor reviews and obvious permission overreach reduce the score.
8. 10%
   8. Player-safety toolingDeposit limits, time-out and self-exclusion options, session reminders, and the prominence of responsible gambling tools and helplines. An operator that hides these tools behind multiple menus or uses dark patterns to discourage their use is capped at 4 regardless of other strengths.

Score bands

Once the weighted score is calculated, the operator falls into one of five bands. The band determines the headline summary in the review.

Hard fails

Three findings cap an operator's score at 3.9 ("Avoid") regardless of performance on the other criteria.

• Withholding a verified player's funds without documented justification. Any operator demonstrably refusing or stalling a payout to a fully verified player past the 30-day mark fails this test.
• Operating without a verifiable licence. If the regulator named on the operator's site does not list the operator on its public register, or if the licence is faked, the operator fails this test.
• Targeting self-excluded or under-age players. If marketing or onboarding bypasses standard age and self-exclusion checks, the operator fails this test.

Hard fails are noted prominently at the top of the review, as a warning, and the operator is removed from any comparison page on which it had previously appeared.

What this framework deliberately does not do

Three things the eight-criterion framework does not measure, by design. It does not measure marketing budget: a glossy site does not improve a score, and a plain one does not damage it. It does not measure the size of the welcome bonus: large bonus, harsh terms ranks below moderate bonus, fair terms. And it does not measure how many casinos a single corporate group runs: each licensed brand is rated as its own operator, even if the back-end is shared with sister sites. The reasons for each choice are spelled out in the testing methodology on the How We Test page.

Disagreeing with a score

Operators that believe a score is wrong, or readers that believe a score is too generous, can write to the editorial address through the Contact page with a specific factual claim and supporting evidence. The procedure for handling those claims is on the Editorial Policy page. Disagreements about taste (whether the live-dealer offering is "good enough", whether a 35x wagering condition is "fair") are not corrected because they are judgement calls; the framework above is what makes those judgements transparent.

Where the framework feeds back into the rest of the site

Two scoring outputs link directly to other parts of Skycrown. The player-safety criterion described above ties to the practical safer-play guidance on the Responsible Gambling page. Privacy-related observations gathered during testing feed the disclosures on the Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy pages rather than into the operator score directly.