How we rank
Every field comes from an operator's own terms or a public register. Unread is recorded as unread, the denominator is fixed, and we test nothing with money.
By the editorial desk · Checked 2026-08-27
This page is the method, written so a reader who disagrees with the order can find the rule that produced it, and so anyone can tell a brand that scores badly from one we know little about. The same rules decide which brands make our shortlist.
Two counts are used throughout the site and they are not interchangeable. The library holds 43 non-subject operator records. The ranked table carries 40 of them: Duelbits, Thrill and Roobet are held out because each has a head-to-head page of its own. Any sentence counting the ranked set says forty; any sentence counting the library says forty-three. The order it produces is the forty BC Game alternatives in order, and who applies it is on the about page.
Where a fact is allowed to come from
There are two permitted sources and no others. The first is a document the operator publishes about itself: its terms of service, its verification or anti-money-laundering policy, its provider page, its cashier page. The second is a public licence register run by the authority that issued the permission.
A review site is never a source. Neither is a forum thread, an affiliate feed or another page on this domain. If a figure cannot be traced to an operator document or a register, it does not enter the library. Every record carries the date its fields were read, and a page quoting a clause quotes its number too.
An unread field is recorded as unread
This is the rule the whole method turns on. When our library holds an empty list for an operator's coins or suppliers, that means nobody has read the relevant document. It does not mean the operator accepts no coins or works with no studios.
Treating an empty field as a clean record would reward silence: a brand that publishes nothing would look better than one that publishes a careful list. So an empty field earns no points, and the pages render it as unread rather than as a nil. The same applies to verification. Where we hold the heading of a clause and not its text, the pages say so and stop.
The ten checks and what each is worth
The score has ten checks and a fixed maximum of ten points, so a record with two filled fields cannot reach the top of the table on a small denominator. An unread field scores zero rather than being excluded from the sum.
| Check | Weight | Brands passing, of 40 |
|---|---|---|
| A licence authority is named | 1.0 | 38 |
| A licence number is published | 1.0 | 38 |
| A register link is held for that number | 1.0 | 38 |
| The licence is live and not revoked | 1.5 | 32 |
| Verification wording has been read | 1.5 | 36 |
| A numeric verification threshold is published | 1.0 | 5 |
| A supplier list has been read | 1.0 | 22 |
| A coin list has been read | 0.75 | 22 |
| A restricted-country list has been read | 0.75 | 25 |
| A founding year is published | 0.5 | 10 |
Maximum ten. Scores across the forty run from 3.3 to 9.0, with a median of 7.3. Counts read 26 to 27 August 2026.
Why the weights sit where they do
The two heaviest checks, at 1.5 each, are a live licence and readable verification wording: the two facts most likely to change what happens to a reader's money, and both checkable without an account. The three licence identity checks are worth a point each, because naming an authority, publishing a number and having somewhere to take it are separable steps.
The list checks sit lower, at a point and three-quarters of a point, because they describe what a site offers rather than how it behaves. A founding year is worth half a point, the lowest weight in the set, because on its own it evidences nothing beyond the length of a public record.
Revoked licences, and how ordering handles them
Where a register returns a licence as revoked, withdrawn or cancelled, the record is flagged, and the sort places a flagged brand below every unflagged one whatever else it holds. A high score never lifts a revoked entry above a live one. Where scores tie, brands are ordered by name: there is no manual thumb on the scale.
None of the forty ranked alternatives carries a revoked licence. The only revoked register result anywhere in our library belongs to BC.Game itself, and it is a former licence rather than its current one: the Curacao Gaming Authority returns OGL/2023/118/0060 as revoked. BC.Game's current Anjouan licence, ALSI-202410011-FI1, returned as valid when we checked it on 27 August 2026. Both facts are true, they concern different licences, and pages still describing BC.Game as Curacao-licensed are out of date.
The commercial relationship is kept out of the score
Some outbound links on this site are commercial. None of the ten checks asks whether a brand is a commercial partner, and no weight is adjusted for one. Where a brand is a partner it is labelled as one, separately and visibly, so that the ordering and the money stay apart on the page as well as in the code. A commercial relationship cannot change a licence number, a register result or a clause, and those are the only things the score reads.
What we have not done
We have not deposited money at any operator on this site. We have not run withdrawal tests. We have not played a single round anywhere, and no page here describes a session, a payout, a support conversation or a wait time as something we experienced.
We do not republish payout percentages or speed claims from other sites, because we cannot verify them and repeating them would launder someone else's assertion into an apparent finding of ours. There is no named reviewer here and no invented biography: the pages are written by the site's editorial desk, and the only credential offered is that every fact carries a source and a date.
- No deposits, at any brand, ever
- No withdrawal tests and no timed payout claims
- No republished figures from other review sites
- No invented reviewer and no invented experience
Questions people ask
- Does a low score mean a brand is untrustworthy?
No. It means little of its own paperwork has been read. The lowest-scoring record in the ranked forty is a brand with no licence number to check, which is a real gap, but it is a gap in evidence rather than a finding about conduct.
- Can a brand pay to move up the table?
No. None of the ten checks reads the commercial relationship, and partner status is labelled separately from the ordering. The score moves only when a brand publishes more that we can read and verify.
BC.Game alternatives ranks all forty against what each one actually publishes.