The rubric
Three tiers. One rubric. Applied identically across every operator in our register.
Headline matches the terms. Wagering is reasonable. All caps and exclusions sit above the fold. Withdrawals consistently meet the stated window.
A solid offer with one specific term to read carefully before claiming — typically wagering scope, game weighting, or a cash-out cap.
Operators we don't currently recommend. Often a slow payout window or terms that take more work to interpret than they should.
The testing protocol
Each operator passes through the same five steps before they make it onto our register.
- 01
Capture
Two screenshots of the operator's promotional page — desktop and mobile — taken from a clean UK IP.
- 02
Quote
The full T&Cs are quoted verbatim into our internal sheet. We do not paraphrase.
- 03
Cross-check
Material claims (wagering, expiry, caps, game weighting) are cross-checked against the operator's full Bonus T&Cs document.
- 04
Real-money test
Where commercially possible, we run a real UK account through deposit, bonus claim, qualifying play, and withdrawal. KYC included.
- 05
Rate
Two reviewers independently propose a tier. Disagreements are escalated; the more conservative rating wins.
What we weight
The five scores that build a final rating, with the weights we apply.
- Bonus terms clarity30%
How readable are the T&Cs? Are caps and exclusions visible above the fold?
- Wagering fairness25%
Is wagering on bonus only or bonus + deposit? How does the multiplier compare to the UK median?
- Withdrawal speed20%
Measured live across our test accounts, not from marketing claims.
- Game library quality15%
Range, provider mix, and average RTP.
- Customer support10%
Response time, escalation paths, weekend coverage.