How We Rate Online Casinos

Last updated: 7 May 2026

Every full operator review on Casiny Online ends with a numerical score out of 10. The score is not an editor's gut feeling — it's the output of an eight-criterion framework applied identically to every casino we cover, partner or not — the funding model behind those partnerships is explained on the Affiliate Disclosure page. This page explains the framework so any reader can check, and if necessary challenge, the inputs that produced a given score; the wider mission of the site is described on the About page. The testing process behind the inputs sits on the How We Test page.

1. Why a numerical rating

Two reasons. First, comparability: a number lets you set "operator A is better than operator B at withdrawals" against "operator A is worse at bonus terms" without re-reading two long reviews. Second, accountability: a fixed framework forces the writer to reach the same conclusion any other reasonable reviewer would reach from the same evidence. Without a numerical score, an editorial team can drift unnoticed into systematic bias; a documented framework makes drift visible.

2. The eight criteria and their weights

Each operator is scored 1–10 against eight criteria. The criteria are weighted because not every dimension matters equally to a typical Australian player.

1. 20%Withdrawal speed and reliabilityThe single most important property of an online casino, because the player's money and the player's time are both at stake. Score reflects measured time-to-pay across PayID, card, and crypto routes; first-withdrawal experience under KYC; and the proportion of recent independent complaints that involve unexplained delays.
2. 15%Bonus and promotional fairnessHeadline match percentages alone do not score well; what matters is the wagering multiplier, game-contribution rates, bet caps, max-cashout caps, and how clearly all of these are surfaced before a player opts in. A small honest bonus outscores a big bonus with hostile fine print.
3. 15%Game library and qualityCatalogue size matters less than catalogue substance: presence of named tier-one studios (NetEnt, Pragmatic Play, Microgaming, Evolution, Play'n GO), live-dealer depth, demo-mode availability, and search/filter functionality. Inflated catalogue counts that include duplicate titles are penalised.
4. 12%Banking range and AU-friendlinessPayID and POLi support, AUD as a base currency, low minimum deposit, transparent fees, withdrawal-method symmetry with deposit methods. Operators that accept POLi for deposit but not withdrawal lose points here even if every other route is fine.
5. 10%Customer supportMeasured time to first human reply on live chat at three different times of day; quality of the answer (does the agent know the product or read from a script); availability of email and phone alternatives. Bots that loop back to FAQ pages are penalised.
6. 10%Mobile experienceResponsive design quality, page-weight on a mid-tier handset, login persistence, and absence of mobile-only friction (e.g. cashier sections that don't render on small screens).
7. 10%Security and licensingHTTPS posture, opt-in 2FA, session controls, RNG audit, licensing jurisdiction reputation. Curaçao GCB and AOFA are scored on a curve against MGA, UKGC, etc.
8. 8%Responsible gambling toolsVisibility and depth of deposit limits, time-out controls, self-exclusion, reality checks, and direct linking to Gambling Help Online and BetStop. Operators that bury these tools four clicks deep are penalised even if the tools technically exist.

3. The formula, with an example

Each criterion's score is multiplied by its weight, and the weighted scores are summed and divided by 10 to produce the final 0–10 rating. A worked example for a hypothetical operator that performs well on banking and library, mid-pack on bonus and support, and weakly on responsible-gambling tools (the player-facing context for those tools is gathered on the Responsible Gambling page):

The final rating is rounded to one decimal place and translates to the scale below.

4. The rating scale

5. Red flags — automatic low scores

Some behaviours produce an automatic ceiling on an operator's score regardless of how it performs elsewhere. Concerns about a specific score can be raised through the Contact page. The list is short and concrete.

• Persistent unexplained withdrawal delays in independent player communities — caps total score at 5.0.
• Bonus terms that retroactively change after a player has opted in — caps at 4.0.
• Refusal to honour a withdrawal that has cleared all stated wagering and KYC requirements — caps at 3.0.
• No HTTPS on cashier or login pages — caps at 4.0 and triggers an immediate "do not register" advisory.
• Operating without any visible licence — automatic 1.0 and recommendation against registration.
• Active enforcement action by ACMA or the operator's licensing regulator — triggers a review pause and a public note on the page until the situation is resolved.

6. When ratings change

Operator scores are not static. Casiny re-tests every reviewed operator at least every six months. A rating may shift earlier in three situations: a verifiable operator-side change (new owner, new licence, new payment method), a substantive change in independent player feedback, or correction of a previously-recorded factual error. Every score change carries a dated note describing what shifted and why; the procedure is set out on the Editorial Policy page. Visitor data handling is described on the Privacy Policy page, and the cookie footprint on the Cookie Policy page.