By Arthur D · updated 6 September 2026
Every casino on CasinAudit carries a score, and this page explains exactly how it is built. I work from one principle: an audit is only worth reading when the reasoning behind it is visible. Nothing that follows is hidden, and none of it is for sale.
In practice, I assess casinos against seven fixed, published criteria, using evidence you can open for yourself. The result fits into a single figure — a Trust Score out of 100 — alongside the detail that produced it.
What a CasinAudit audit is, and what it isn’t
It isn’t a sponsored ranking. I sell no positions, and no operator can pay to inflate a score or make an awkward finding disappear. Any commission a link may earn does not touch the assessment.
Nor is it a personal opinion dressed up as a verdict. Every point awarded traces back to a specific, documented check. When an operator’s claim can’t be confirmed by an independent source, I don’t credit it: I mark it as unverified, which is information in itself.
Finally, it isn’t a promise of winnings or gambling advice. A high score says an operator is properly regulated and keeps its commitments, not that you will make money there.
The Trust Score out of 100
The score is composite: I rate seven areas, weight each by what it genuinely protects for a player, and add them together. A label sits alongside the figure so it reads at a glance.
The weighting matters more than the final number, because it states what I consider important. That’s why I publish it in full rather than keeping it to myself.
- 80–100 – Excellent
- 65–79 – Dependable
- 50–64– Adequate
- 35–49 – Risky
- < 35 – Avoid
This method has not stayed theoretical. The first published audit, Fortuna Casino scoring 80 out of 100, shows how the seven criteria apply to a real case: what earned points, what cost them, and the findings I would not have made without opening the terms and conditions.
The seven criteria and their exact weight
| Criterion | What I verify | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Licensing and regulation | Valid licence, matched against the regulator’s public register | 25% |
| Withdrawals and payments | Stated processing times, limits, fees and identity checks | 15% |
| Game fairness | Independent testing of the random number generator and payout rates | 15% |
| Security and data | Encryption on sensitive pages, stated data-handling practices | 15% |
| Complaints and reputation | Dispute resolution, documented complaints history | 10% |
| Terms transparency | Clarity and fairness of the terms and bonus conditions | 10% |
| Responsible gambling | Limits, time-outs, access to exclusion, links to support | 10% |
| Total | 100% | |
Why licensing carries the most weight
A valid licence from a demanding regulator is the foundation everything else rests on: without one there is no recourse, no obligation to pay out, and no protection in a dispute. So I systematically check that an operator appears on its authority’s public register, and for the Belgian market, on the list of licensed operators held by the Gaming Commission.
In Belgium the question is not one of regulator quality: every licensed operator answers to the same Commission. What I assess is how each one makes its own licence verifiable. Is the number displayed, in the footer and in the terms? Does the name given match the register? Where several companies are involved, is each role explained? Across the first four audits, two operators displayed their licence number nowhere, and three involved several companies without always making clear which does what.
What the cashier reveals
Withdrawal terms often say more than a homepage does. I read the stated processing times, the weekly or monthly caps, any fees, and the point at which identity verification is demanded. An operator that defers the KYC check until just before a first withdrawal, rather than at sign-up, creates friction the player discovers at the worst possible moment — and that costs points.
I also look at whether what is promised matches what the terms and conditions actually provide, because the gap between the two is a reliable signal.
What the operator actually controls
A criterion is only worth having if it measures a decision the operator makes. Game certification is not one: the tests cover the random number generators of the studios that build the games, and no Belgian operator publishes those reports because they do not belong to it. I spent a long time looking for something nobody could supply.
What the operator does decide is what it makes visible before sign-up. Can you see the suppliers and how many titles each one has? Is return to player accessible before you stake, or only mid-game? Is there a demo mode? Can you open the paytable?
That is what the “information about the games” criterion measures. It weighs less than the others, because Belgian operators are now all at roughly the same level on it.
What only shows over time
A site can look flawless and fall short the moment a disagreement arises. So I examine what the terms provide: how long you have to complain, whether the operator commits to a reply time, whether the Gaming Commission is named as a route of recourse with its contact details, and through which channels support can be reached. It is the criterion where the gaps are widest between equally licensed operators, which is why it now weighs as much as data security.
The final criterion, responsible gambling, works on the same principle: I check that the tools genuinely exist inside the player account, not only on an information page. The detail of those checks is set out on my responsible gambling page for Belgium.
Where my evidence comes from
My findings rest on sources you can open yourself: official regulator registers, certification laboratories, the operator’s own published terms and cashier pages, and public enforcement or mediation records. Any claim that affects a score is cross-checked against at least one primary source.
The limit, stated plainly: my hands-on work is an examination of the operator’s live site, sign-up flow and documentation. I do not open accounts and I do not gamble with real money. Where a point can only be established by a regulator or a certifier, I cite that source rather than my own say-so.
How I stay independent
Some links to operators earn me a commission. That revenue enters none of the seven criteria above. A partner that scores badly keeps that score, and no operator reviews my audits before publication.
Who produces these audits, and how often
Audits are produced by Arthur D, the site’s sole author. Every entry carries a date, because an audit reflects one specific moment: a licence status shifts, complaints emerge, terms get rewritten.
I re-examine an entry as soon as something material moves, and older audits show their last-reviewed date openly rather than presenting themselves as timeless.
My limits, and your right to correct me
No methodology is perfect and regulation moves fast. If you can show that a finding is out of date or mistaken, tell me: verifiable corrections are applied quickly, with the change noted. That feedback loop is part of the method, not an afterthought. You can see the method applied in my comparison of licensed Belgian operators.
Three years in iGaming, focused on licensed casinos in Belgium. I write every CasinAudit page myself and check each figure against an official source.