Researched by Natalia K. in MaltaUpdated 2026-07-14 · Evidence checked 2026-07-07

How we rate casinos

Every verdict on this site is assembled from the same four evidence classes, in the same order of authority. When a class is missing, the page says “in the test queue” in its place — the review template literally refuses to fill those sections any other way.

The four evidence classes

Operator marketing pages are not an evidence class. They’re the thing the classes above exist to check.

What a review must contain before it publishes

1. Licence of record — authority and licence id, linked to the authority’s register where one exists (hard gate — no verified licence, no page). You can repeat the check yourself in a minute with the licence verification guide.
2. A completed hands-on test log: real deposit, real withdrawal, timed verification.
3. Bonus material terms adjacent to the offer — wagering, max bet, eligible games, expiry, max cashout — never behind a “T&Cs apply” link.
4. Payment acceptance verified per rail from a Maltese account, not copied from a cashier FAQ.
5. A named author and a “last verified” date.

Reviews missing any of these say so in plain text and stay out of the search index until complete.

Verification cadence

• Payout measurements: rolling retest cycle per rail; stale data ages out of the index rather than lingering.
• Licence checks: re-verified at every content update touching the operator.
• Bonus terms: re-read on every offer change we detect; the “last verified” date on each page is the honest freshness signal.

Corrections and updates

If a number on this site is wrong, tell us — the contact page reaches the person who ran the test, not a form inbox; who that person is, and how this site is funded, is on the about page. A reported error is checked against the original evidence (the capture, the timestamped log, the operator’s terms of that date), and whatever the check finds is what publishes: a correction, a re-test, or a note that the operator has since changed the rule.

Corrections are never silent. When a published fact changes — because we got it wrong or because the operator moved — the page’s “evidence checked” date moves with it, and measured figures are only ever replaced by newer measurements, not edited. A first test stays labelled a first test until a repeat cycle turns it into something stronger.

The editorial score

Since 21 August 2026 each review carries a score out of ten. It is computed, not awarded: five components worth two points each, every one bound to a field on the operator’s record, so the number moves only when the record does and no brand can be hand-tuned upward.

1. Malta access — full points only for a registration verified on a Malta-resident account.
2. Payout evidence — a withdrawal timed end to end scores full; a displayed withdrawal rail scores half; terms-only a quarter; nothing, nothing.
3. Licence verifiability — full points when the entity and domain are matched on the regulator’s own tools; partial where a public register exists unchecked; least where the authority publishes no register at all.
4. Offer cost — the operator’s own stated wagering multiplier, cheapest scoring highest; an unpublished multiplier scores as unknown, never as free.
5. Rails on record — how much of the cashier is confirmed for a Malta account.

Two things the score is not. It is not a player rating — no votes exist, and we publish no star markup to search engines, because a rating schema without real raters is fabricated data. And it is not a promise: a 9 with a thin payout row still means nobody has timed that cashier, and the component rows under every score say so in words.

The commercial firewall

We earn affiliate commissions (full disclosure). The firewall is structural: measured data enters pages from the data files the test team maintains; commercial relationships have no write access to those files, no influence on the index methodology, and no veto on a negative verdict. If an operator’s numbers are bad, the numbers publish.