Last updated: 1 May 2026 · By Sienna Marsh

How We Rate Casinos

Every casino on JeetCity Casino carries a single overall rating from 1 to 10, with one decimal place. That number is not a gut feeling. It is the output of a published scoring formula applied to eight weighted criteria, each scored on the testing data we collect through the eight-stage protocol in How We Test. This page documents the formula, the weights, and what each band of the final score actually means. The point is so any reader can audit a rating against the criteria as stated.

The scoring system in short

Each of the eight criteria is scored from 1 to 10, then multiplied by its assigned weight, and the eight weighted scores are added together to produce the overall rating. The weights add up to 100%, so the overall rating sits on the same 1-to-10 scale as the individual criteria. We round to one decimal place at the end.

Same methodology, every casino, regardless of commercial relationship. The weights below have not changed since 2023 and we publish them so that operators, partners and readers all see the same rules.

The eight criteria and their weights

Why the weights are what they are

Safety and licensing carries the heaviest weight (20%) because nothing else matters if the operator is not legitimate. A casino with a generous bonus and fast payouts but no verifiable licence is still not a casino we will recommend, and the weighting captures that.

Bonuses and game library both sit at 15%. They matter to player experience but neither is decisive on its own; an excellent bonus does not save a slow-paying operator, and a fantastic game catalogue does not save one with weak responsible-gambling tooling.

Withdrawal speed (13%) and payment methods (12%) sit just below. Withdrawals get the higher weight of the two because that is the moment most operator-vs-player friction surfaces in practice; the range of payment methods is important but secondary if the methods that exist actually work quickly.

Customer support (10%), mobile experience (8%) and responsible gambling (7%) round out the lower weights. None of these is unimportant: a casino that fails responsible-gambling testing cannot reach our top tier even if everything else is excellent, because we apply red-flag rules on top of the formula (see below). The lower numerical weight captures the fact that differentiation between operators in these categories is narrower than in the headline categories.

Detailed criterion definitions

Safety & Licensing (20%)

The licence is checked on the regulator's own register, not on the operator's marketing copy. A current MGA, UKGC or directly relevant national licence (for AU operators where applicable, ACMA-registered services) earns the upper bracket of the score (8-10 points). Curaçao licences fit a middle bracket, with the score depending on the Master Licence holder, the operator's track record, and any documented enforcement actions; this category typically scores 5-7 points unless there is a specific concern. Operators where the licence cannot be verified at source, or has lapsed, score 1-2 points and trigger an automatic blacklist.

SSL/TLS configuration, data handling visibility (does the operator publish a privacy policy that actually addresses player data?), known security incidents, and ownership transparency contribute to the score within the relevant bracket.

Bonuses & Promotions (15%)

We do not score the headline bonus number; we score the realistic value once wagering, weighting tables, max-bet rules, excluded games, time limits and maximum-cashout caps are accounted for. A 100% match up to $500 with x35 wagering on bonus only is significantly better than a 200% match up to $1000 with x50 wagering on bonus plus deposit, even though the second offer looks more generous. Casinos that publish clear, readable bonus terms score above casinos that bury the same information across multiple pages. Reload bonuses, cashback, free spins and a transparent VIP scheme contribute to the score on top of the welcome offer.

Game Library (15%)

Catalogue size matters, but only above a baseline. We treat 500 high-quality games as adequate, 1500-plus as excellent, and anything under 250 as a meaningful drawback. Provider diversity matters more than raw count: a catalogue of 3000 games from three providers scores worse than one of 800 games from twelve providers. We give specific weight to the presence of leading content (NetEnt, Pragmatic Play, Microgaming, Play'n GO, Hacksaw, Nolimit City, Push Gaming) and to live casino offerings from Evolution, Pragmatic Live or Ezugi. Exclusive games, jackpot networks, and game-show titles are scored as bonus features above the baseline.

Payment Methods (12%)

The score covers three things: the breadth of methods (we treat five mainstream methods as the baseline), the presence of locally-relevant rails (PayID is the practical gold standard for Australian players, and its absence is a noticeable drag on the score), and the fairness of fees and limits. Crypto support adds points where present without removing them where absent. Withdrawal limits appear here too, because a method that lets you deposit $10,000 but only withdraw $2,000 a week is a payment-method failure even if the speed itself is fine.

Withdrawal Speed (13%)

Scored on the end-to-end time from withdrawal request to funds arriving in the destination account. Under 24 hours scores 9 to 10 points. 24 to 72 hours scores 7 to 8 points; this is a normal range for most operators using bank rails. 3 to 5 working days scores 5 to 6 points. 5 to 7 working days scores 3 to 4 points and is flagged in the review prose. Anything over 7 days, or any sign of deliberate delay tactics, drops to 1 to 2 points and triggers a written warning at the top of the review. We also penalise operators who have a "reverse withdrawal" feature that lets you cancel a pending withdrawal and play with the funds again, because that feature exists primarily to extract more money from players experiencing weak moments.

Customer Support (10%)

Scored across response time, accuracy, channels and availability. Live chat with under-three-minute response across morning, evening and late-night windows scores in the upper bracket. Email-only support with response times measured in days scores in the lower bracket. We test agent accuracy by asking specific operator-knowledge questions and checking the answers against the operator's own published terms; agents who give wrong answers cost the casino points. English fluency and Australian-specific knowledge (the local payment methods, the local responsible-gambling resources) contribute on top.

Mobile Experience (8%)

Mobile is now the majority of player traffic, so the criterion exists, but the score band is narrower than people expect. Most operators have invested enough in mobile by 2026 that the bottom of the range (1 to 3 points) is rare; the typical mobile score for a tested casino sits between 6 and 9. We score on iOS and Android together (a casino must work on both), on full cashier functionality on mobile (deposits and withdrawals, both), on live-game performance under reduced bandwidth, and on the parity (or lack of parity) between native app behaviour and mobile-web behaviour where an app exists.

Responsible Gambling (7%)

The lowest weight by percentage, but a category we treat seriously through red-flag rules below. We score on tool availability (deposit limits, loss limits, session timers, cool-off, self-exclusion, links to helplines), tool prominence (findable within two clicks), tool integrity (lowering limits is immediate, raising limits has a cooling-off period, self-exclusion is irreversible during its term), and the operator's choice of helpline links (Australian players should see Australian helplines, including Gambling Help Online and BetStop; operators who only link to UK or US services are missing the point). Our broader treatment of safer play sits in the Responsible Gambling page.

The formula

For each casino, we calculate:

Overall = (Safety × 0.20) + (Bonuses × 0.15) + (Games × 0.15) + (Payments × 0.12) + (Withdrawals × 0.13) + (Support × 0.10) + (Mobile × 0.08) + (RG × 0.07)

Worked example. A casino scoring 9 on safety, 7 on bonuses, 8 on games, 8 on payments, 9 on withdrawals, 7 on support, 8 on mobile, 6 on responsible gambling: (9 × 0.20) + (7 × 0.15) + (8 × 0.15) + (8 × 0.12) + (9 × 0.13) + (7 × 0.10) + (8 × 0.08) + (6 × 0.07) = 1.80 + 1.05 + 1.20 + 0.96 + 1.17 + 0.70 + 0.64 + 0.42 = 7.94, rounded to 7.9.

What the rating bands mean

The overall score lands the casino in one of six bands. The band is what most readers actually care about, and what we summarise in review headlines.

9.0-10.0: Excellent. Best-in-class on most categories with no significant weakness. Strong licensing, fair bonus terms, fast payouts, broad payment options, responsive support across the day, polished mobile, real responsible-gambling tooling. We recommend without hesitation, while still asking readers to apply their own judgement on whether the operator suits their specific play style. Very few casinos reach this band.

8.0-8.9: Very good. Strong across the board, with at most one or two minor weaknesses. Recommended. Most readers will be well-served by an operator in this range.

7.0-7.9: Good. A solid casino with at least one notable area for improvement that we will call out in the review. Recommended with caveats. Read the review through to understand which specific criterion is dragging the score and decide whether it matters to you.

6.0-6.9: Adequate. Functional but with material weaknesses. We do not actively recommend operators in this band; we cover them so that players who are determined to use them know what they are getting into. There are usually better options elsewhere.

5.0-5.9: Below standard. Several meaningful issues. We recommend looking elsewhere unless you have a specific reason for choosing this operator. The review will explain what those issues are.

Below 5.0: Not recommended. Critical problems with safety, payouts, licensing, or player protection. The review serves as a warning, not a recommendation.

Red-flag rules that override the formula

Some operator behaviours are bad enough that they cap the maximum overall rating regardless of what the formula calculates. These are the red flags we apply.

No verifiable licence. Maximum overall: 1.0. The casino enters the blacklist, not the recommendation set.

Documented pattern of refused withdrawals. Maximum overall: 4.0. By "documented pattern" we mean ten or more independent player complaints in the past six months citing the same issue, on platforms with verifiable complaint records.

Confiscation of winnings on weak grounds. Maximum overall: 4.5. Operators who routinely void winnings citing vague "bonus abuse" clauses or T&C provisions that are unreasonable on their face fall here.

Wagering requirements above x60. Maximum bonus criterion score: 4.0. The arithmetic on a x60 wager is unfavourable enough that the bonus has effectively negative expected value, and we treat it as such.

No working KYC. Maximum safety score: 3.0. An operator that does not verify player identity is a regulatory risk to the players themselves, not a feature.

Missing core responsible-gambling tools. Maximum responsible-gambling score: 2.0. Self-exclusion is non-negotiable; deposit limits are non-negotiable; absence of either drops the category to its floor.

Hidden adverse terms surfaced during testing. Maximum overall: 5.0. Where our testing reveals terms that were not disclosed in the marketing materials and that materially worsen the player position, we apply this cap and explain in the review.

How and when ratings change

Ratings are not permanent. Re-tests on the 3-to-6-month cycle described in How We Test can move a rating up or down. When a rating changes by more than half a point, we publish a note explaining the change and the criterion that drove it. Where an operator has materially improved (faster payouts, better bonus terms, new responsible-gambling features) we say so and the rating moves up to match. Where an operator has slid (slower payouts, more aggressive bonus traps, complaint patterns appearing) the rating drops accordingly and the review carries a warning at the top.

We also publish a "last verified" date on every rated review. That date tells you when the testing data behind the rating was last refreshed; if the date is more than six months in the past, treat the rating as a starting point and check the operator's current terms before relying on it.

Where to ask questions

If a published rating seems internally inconsistent (the criterion scores do not seem to match the prose, or the formula does not produce the headline number you expected), write to [email protected] and we will explain or correct as appropriate. The broader editorial process behind ratings is documented in Editorial Policy, and the testing data that feeds ratings is documented in How We Test.