By Arthur D · Published on 28 August 2026 | Updated 20 October 2026
An audit here is not an opinion. It is a documented examination of a licensed operator, carried out against seven published criteria, resulting in a score out of 100. Every point awarded traces back to something verifiable: an entry in the register, a clause in the terms, a data policy, a tool that either exists or does not.
This page gathers the audits already published and explains what a score means, what it does not say, and how to challenge it.
If you would rather understand what separates one operator from another before reading the audits one by one, what makes an online casino reliable in Belgium sets out the seven points I check and and what those audits have produced so far.
What separates an audit from a review
A review recounts an experience. An audit tests claims. The difference shows the moment the author and the operator disagree.
With a review, all you have is the word of whoever wrote it. With an audit, you have the source: if I write that an operator caps its instant withdrawals at a given amount, that sentence sits in its terms and conditions and you can read it there. If I am wrong, it can be demonstrated.
In practice, an audit on this site does three things.
- It tests an operator’s statements against its own documents and flags the gaps between the two.
- It awards points on a scale identical for everyone, published in advance, which the page setting out my method details criterion by criterion.
- It dates its findings, because a clause rewritten the following month makes the analysis obsolete.
And it does not do the reverse: no purchased ranking, no score adjusted afterwards, no operator consulted before publication.
How to read a score out of 100
The score measures what an operator makes verifiable, not the quality of its catalogue or the enjoyment you get from it. A site can be flawless on paper and thoroughly dull.
Nothing to fault on the essentials. The operator documents what it does, commits to figures and makes its terms verifiable. That does not mean it is flawless, but that its gaps do not touch what really matters.
The essentials are in order and verifiable. Some vague areas remain, with no direct consequence for the player.
Obligations are met, but several useful details cannot be found without opening an account.
Gaps that hit the player directly: vague terms, poorly described recourse, tools announced without existing.
Too many essential elements missing or contradictory to suggest opening an account there.
One point that matters: a high score is not an invitation to play. It indicates that an operator honours its written commitments. Gambling remains gambling, and the protection tools exist for good reasons.
Published audits
What lifts it · A licence number displayed properly and a split of roles between companies spelt out in black and white, with withdrawals processed within 24 working hours.
What pulls it down · Only seven days to file a complaint, and audits called independent without a single auditor named.
What lifts it · Withdrawal terms stated in figures where most stay vague, and data handling documented down to the name of the data protection officer.
What pulls it down · Two different companies declare themselves in the same terms and conditions, and no certification laboratory is named.
What lifts it · The only data policy on this market stating PCI-DSS compliance and guaranteeing that banking details never pass in clear text.
What holds it back · A self-exclusion undone in one click, while an ordinary break cannot be cut short.
What lifts it · The first A+ holder I examined, and so genuine tables with a dealer, with no time bar on filing a complaint.
What pulls it down · Three different withdrawal times on the same help page, and three legal documents attaching the Commission to the wrong ministry.
What lifts it · The only operator audited that publishes its ownership and its history, with withdrawals credited in under thirty minutes and the compatible banks named.
What pulls it down · A player protection page that announces a self-exclusion without ever saying how long it lasts.
What lifts it · A withdrawal time stated for each payment method, and a library open without an account where every game carries its return-to-player rate.
What holds it back · Complaints shut out after six months, and disputes sent to a mediator without the Gaming Commission ever being named.
What lifts it · A licence renewed for nine years, and a stated time for withdrawals that do not go through the instant route.
What pulls it down · Terms dated 2023 resting on a decree since replaced, and a self-exclusion undone in one click.
What lifts it · The only audited operator publishing its six venues with their addresses, and naming its platform provider with its licence class.
What holds it back · A commercial page promising 45 minutes without mentioning the sixty-working-day enquiry clause.
Audits in preparation
These are the next licensed operators I will examine. They all appear in the comparison on the home page, marked “coming” in the Audit column.
Bwin · Loco Casino · Wellington · Magic Betting · Versailles · Carousel · Bingoal · Casino King
I am not giving a schedule, because I would not keep it. Each entry appears once its file is complete, and a complete file means reading every public document an operator publishes, not skimming its home page.
What an audit cannot tell you
Better to set the limits myself than wait to be reproached for them.
It does not measure real processing times. I record what an operator commits to, which is not the same as a timed withdrawal. I do not open accounts and I do not gamble with real money, so I make no claim about how long a payment actually takes. For timeframes I record what each operator writes on its own cashier page, and I have gathered what each one states and under what conditions.
Nor do I test a registration: I do not open a player account. What I can tell you is what each operator requires before letting you deposit, and I have gathered the documents asked for and the processing times.
It does not judge the playing experience. Usability, catalogue depth, live quality: all of that is a matter of taste and cannot be verified.
It does not replace the official register. A licence can be suspended between two updates of this site. When in doubt, the Gaming Commission’s register prevails, not my page.
Getting an audit corrected
If a finding looks out of date or inaccurate, write to me with something that establishes it: a screenshot, a link to the page concerned, a reference. Operators may use the same address to report an outdated figure.
Disagreeing with a score is not enough to change it. Since the scale is public, the discussion is about the facts and how they were applied, not about the result.
Verifiable corrections are applied quickly and the update date on the entry concerned is changed accordingly.
Frequently asked questions
How many audits are published today?
Eight: Fortuna Casino, Oria Casino, PlayOne, BeCasino, Golden Palace, Madison Casino, Ladbrokes Casino and Betsson Casino. The last two are the A+ licence holders I have examined. The other licensed operators are in preparation, with no date announced.
Why so few published audits?
Because one entry takes several hours of reading. The terms, the data policy, the cookie policy and an operator’s support pages all have to be gone through before a single point can be awarded. Publishing fast would mean scoring on guesswork.
Can an operator pay to improve its score?
No. This site’s revenue comes from affiliate links, but no payment enters the seven criteria, and no operator reviews an audit before it appears.
Can two operators belong to the same group?
Yes, and that is the case among the operators already audited. Fortuna and Oria declare the same publisher in their terms and both rest on a Golden Palace venue. Nothing irregular, but anyone comparing them is not comparing two independent companies. I counted those links across the whole register, and the result is behind the brands.
Do these audits cover other countries?
Not yet. Belgium first, because it is the market whose framework I know in detail. Others will follow once I can handle them without approximation.
Three years in iGaming, focused on licensed casinos in Belgium. I write every CasinAudit page myself and check each figure against an official source.