On this page
Principles
- Verifiability first. Any claim has to be reproducible by a reader with the same tools we used — a linked public register, a cached T&Cs page, a visible cashier surface.
- Player cost over headline numbers. A 200% welcome bonus means nothing without wagering, max-bet and eligible-games context; a review should translate the headline into what it costs to clear.
- Asymmetric risks are flagged explicitly. The upside of a surface (a clean mini-app, a fast payout history) is worth naming; so is the downside (no Canadian complaint path, exclusion lists on e-wallet deposits).
- Limits are stated out loud. If we did not run a claim cycle, or did not place real bets, or did not benchmark support response times, we say so on the page — not in the footer.
Dimensions we evaluate
We evaluate product-and-UX dimensions. For anything that depends on an operator's licence status, we link to the licensor's own register page so a reader can confirm independently — that verification is the reader's to do, not a verdict of our own.
| Dimension | What we look at |
|---|---|
| Operational transparency | Ownership chain, corporate identity, T&Cs readability. |
| Terms clarity | Bonus math, wagering rules, payment restrictions, edge cases. |
| Payments & settlement | Methods offered, withdrawal times observed, fee transparency. |
| Game mix | Providers named, RTP disclosure, demo availability, geo-restrictions on specific titles. |
| Responsible-gambling tools | Limits, time-outs, account-pause options, session reminders, visibility of support resources on the operator's own site. |
| Support | Channels, response times, language coverage, escalation paths. |
| Mobile UX | PWA / mini-app quality, touch targets, cashier on mobile. |
Evidence we require
- Public-source claims are presented with a link to the source page so the reader can verify directly. We do not re-state outside conclusions as our own.
- Payment specifics backed by the operator's current cashier page and the payment provider's documentation.
- T&C summaries linked to the specific clause and dated.
- Bonus-math worked out, not quoted.
- Reputation signals attributed to identified reviewers.
Why we don't score
Numeric scores make complex, multi-dimensional products look like rankings — and rankings are catnip for affiliate pages. We consider them actively misleading. Instead we describe strengths and weaknesses, flag the support, payments and complaint-path context, and trust Canadian readers to weigh the trade-offs themselves.
Limits of our reviews
What our reviews are not:
- They are not official ratings. We do not have inspection powers and we do not issue certifications.
- They are not stress tests. We don't enrol real money and run a battery of withdrawals at scale.
- They are not affiliate rankings. We don't have a referral relationship with any operator we cover.
- They are not predictions. A green traffic-light on a criterion in 2026 doesn't mean it'll be green in 2027 — operators change.
What they are: structured editorial framing, anchored in public sources and major-platform reporting, designed to help a reader form their own decision faster than reading every source individually.
Update cycle
Pages on fast-moving topics (bonus structure, payment methods, operator-side changes) are re-reviewed on a quarterly cycle. Pages on slow-moving topics (terminology, methodology, background context) are reviewed annually. Material changes trigger an update note.